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

Re: Concluding the LPPL debate, try 2

> From: Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net>
> Date: 25 Jul 2002 23:36:22 +0200

> I can't imagine that it would be acceptable for the LaTeX people that
> a change in the LaTeX *kernel* would make it legal to hack in another
> file that, from their point of wiev, is part of an entirely
> different, separately distributed work.

Why? If a file is outside the LaTeX search path, there is no reason to
keep it frozen. Actually the current LPPL explicitly gives you the
right to change a licensed file without renaming it, if you place it
outside of the LaTeX search path. It does not recommend it, but is
allowed nevertheless.

Good luck


It would be nice if the Food and Drug Administration stopped issuing warnings
about toxic substances and just gave me the names of one or two things still
safe to eat.
		-- Robert Fuoss

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

Reply to: