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

Re: Concluding the LPPL debate, try 2

Jeff Licquia <licquia@debian.org> writes:

> 3.  Change or remove the behavior of the "register" call entirely (which
> is a kernel modification), and make sure that the modified kernel does
> not represent itself as LaTeX in name, diagnostic output, etc.
> (Option 3 might be expressly discouraged by the LaTeX Project, but it is
> important nevertheless.)

One thing that might make sense here would be to include a command
line option or a command to use within a document to permit the
inclusion of non-standard latex files.  This would force uses to jump
a (small) hurdle to use non-standard latex extensions, but still make
it easy to do (easier than forking latex, anyway).  Essentially, this
simply adds a tier to the namespace.

This makes option 3 even less attractive to folks because they can
accomplish the same thing simply by saying 'latex \nonstandard' or
'latex \acceptregistry{foo}' or whatever.  (Yes, this could be done
from within a non-standard extension as well.)

That said, looks good to me.  While I do think that in the end this
license condition is, especially with the registration concept,
superfluous (today, if not 10 years ago), I don't object to it going
into Debian.

Jeremy Hankins <nowan@nowan.org>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333  9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03

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

Reply to: