[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Suggestion for dual-licensed LaTeX (was Re: Encoding the name

>> 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:

I interpret the \NeedsTeXFormat requirement as:
[possible license text]
   N.  You may freely modify the WORK and/or distribute derived works,
provided that at least one of the following applies:
	a) You change the argument to the NeedsTeXFormat macro in the derived work,
ensuring that your derived work is not used by STANDARD LaTeX.
	b) You change the name of the modified FILE in the derived work so that it
will not be used by STANDARD LaTeX.
	c) You provide interactive notice message(s) to the user that they are
using a derived work.
	d) You are a member of the LaTeX Maintainer Group.

So, a modification of article.cls can be used in conjunction with
deblatex.ltx (so the user calls "/usr/bin/deblatex")

Or it can be called article-debian.cls.

Or it can print a warning message that it is a modified version, and might
not produce canonical output.

Or it can come from the LaTeX maintainers.

Does this meet the LaTeX project's goals, and are these permissions
sufficient for the DFSG?


To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: