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

Re: Suggestion for dual-licensed LaTeX (was Re: Encoding the name in the file contents (was Re: Towards a new LPPL draft))



>>>>> On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 15:57:36 -0400, Boris Veytsman <borisv@lk.net> said:

>> From: Brian Sniffen <bts@alum.mit.edu>
>> Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 13:39:49 -0400
>> The terms of the copy of TeX on my computer appear to be rather
>> different: it's public domain with a trademarked name, with some GPL'd
>> extensions.
> Brian, this is a myth. It was debunked several times here. If you
> wish, I can repeat.
> 1. You cannot change a bit in several TeX source files without
>    renaming them or the engine (TeX).

Certainly true.

> 2. You can do whatever you want with TeX code as long as it is not
>    called TeX.

Yes.  But it requires renaming the *work*, not each individual file.
Some of the files, of course, carry more stringent terms.

> 3. You can do whatever you want with LaTeX code as long it is not
>    called LaTeX.

Not under the proposed LPPL3.  The requirement to alter functional
code (filenames) when modifying is much more strict than the TeX
limitation, which requires changing only the name on the
user-interface (the executable) and the name of the work.

-Brian

Attachment: pgpR4iI0imOa0.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: