Re: Suggestion for dual-licensed LaTeX (was Re: Encoding the name in the file contents (was Re: Towards a new LPPL draft))
On Thu, 2002-07-25 at 12:48, Brian Sniffen wrote:
> > Plus, I've yet to hear a good argument for why the \NeedsTeXFormat thing
> > isn't DFSG-free.
>
> I think it's a matter of which direction it's coming from. There are
> several variants which are free, and several which aren't. For
> example:
>
> 1. "You can't distribute code using \NeedsTeXFormat{LaTeX} unless
> you're a LaTeX maintainer."
>
> 2. "You can only distribute code using
> \NeedsTeXFormat{NonstandardLaTeX} unless you're a LaTeX maintainer."
>
> 3. "You may not change the \NeedsTeXFormat{} string unless you're the
> original author."
>
> 4. "If you modify the file, and if the file had a
> \NeedsTeXFormat{} string and an \OriginalNeedsTeXFormat{LaTeX}
> already, you may not distribute it with the same NeedsTeXFormat
> argument as the \OriginalNeedsTeXFormat argument. You may not
> modify the OriginalNeedsTeXFormat argument or the functioning of
> the NeedsTeXFormat or OriginalNeedsTeXFormat commands."
>
> I take it 4 is what's being considered?
No, not really. I think this does point out something that's in the
back of my mind, but which should be discussed in detail.
I'll post a summary of my current thinking on the license soon, and let
everyone comment.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: