Re: Suggestion for dual-licensed LaTeX (was Re: Encoding the name in the file contents (was Re: Towards a new LPPL draft))
> From: Brian Sniffen <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 17:52:16 -0400
> > 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.
I am afraid you are not right.
Suppose you distribute BOTH Knuthian TeX and your own unTeX. You
decide to hack plain.tex to use with your unTeX. Fine with
Knuth. However, if this hacked version is picked up by TeX, you
violate the license. So you must take measures to prevent this. How
can you do this? There are two ways: either you remain plain.tex or
you put it outside the texmf tree. This is exactly what the current
AFAIK, LPPL was crafted (i) to spell out Knuthian ideas in a more
formal way and (ii) to weaken Knuthian requirements a bit, making
modifications easier. In other words, its authors tried to be
nice. As a result, you accuse them in making a license less free than
the Knuthian one. This is not fair, I think.
> > 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.
If you create non-LaTeX, you can move files outside the tree, and
then you are completely free to do whatever you want.
Monogamy is the Western custom of one wife and hardly any mistresses.
-- H.H. Munro
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org