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: