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

Re: Concluding the LPPL debate, try 2

Henning Makholm writes:
 > Scripsit Boris Veytsman <borisv@lk.net>
 > > > From: Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net>
 > > 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.
 > Hm. Must have missed that. If true, it renders most of my recent
 > messages to the thread utter nonsense. In that case there can be no
 > doubt at all that it is a free license.
 > Erm .. the *current* LPPL you say, being LPPL version 1.2? I cannot
 > find any language in there that allows naming outside of the LaTeX
 > search path. There seems to be no exceptions to condition (3) about
 > not distributing modified files with original names.
 > Could you please give a more precise reference, preferrably a quote,
 > of the language you think allows this?

to be precise I guess Boris claim has to be corrected a bit.

It is not surprising that you don't find that statement inside LPPL 1.2 as it
is simply not there. However, LPPL 1.2 refers to cfgguide.tex for explanations
and examples for using/obeying to the license and achieveing your goals. It

 We, the LaTeX3 Project, believe that the conditions below give you
 the freedom to make and distribute modified versions of The Program
 that conform with whatever technical specifications you wish while
 maintaining the availability, integrity, and reliability of
 The Program.  If you do not see how to achieve your goal while
 meeting these conditions, then read the document `cfgguide.tex'
 in the base LaTeX distribution for suggestions.

cfgguide contains an example how to produce a LaTeX fork that allows to use
replacement files (with different names) in place of standard files (ie how to
implement the remapping feature (which I still think would be sufficient to
implement any modification you like, and which is able to process any document
(in a different way) without the need to manually change the document).

cfgguide.tex also refers to modguide.tex for further comments and instructions
and this document contains the following section:

===================================================== modguide.tex extract
 \section{Modification conditions}

 It is possible that you need to produce a document processing system
 based on standard \LaTeX{} but with functionality that cannot be
 implemented by using the approved configuration files and complying
 with the restriction on the code that is allowed in them.  In other
 words, you may need a system which is sufficiently distinct from
 Standard \LaTeX{} that it is not feasible to do this simply by using
 the configuration options we provide or by producing new classes and

 If you do produce such a system then, for the reasons described
 above, you should ensure that your system is clearly distinguished
 from Standard \LaTeX{} in every possible way, including the following.

   Give your system a distinguished name, such as \nstex, which clearly
   distinguishes it from \LaTeX{}.

   Ensure that it contains no file with a name the same as that of
   a file in the standard distribution but with different contents.
   (If this is not possible then you must:
     ensure that files from the non-\LaTeX{} system cannot be
     accidentally accessed whilst using a standard \LaTeX{};
   \item ensure that each file from the non-\LaTeX{} system clearly
     identifies itself as a non-\LaTeX{} file on the terminal and in the
     log file.)

   Ensure that the method used to run your system is clearly
   distinct from that used to run Standard \LaTeX; e.g.~by using a
   command name or menu entry that is clearly not \texttt{latex}
   (or \texttt{LaTeX} etc).

   Ensure that, when a file is being processed by your system, the
   use of non-standard \LaTeX{} is clearly proclaimed to the user by
   whatever means is appropriate.

 \item Ensure that what is written at the beginning of the log file
   clearly shows that your system has been used, and that it is
   not Standard \LaTeX{}.
   See the file \texttt{cfgguide.tex} for how to achieve this.

  Clearly explain to users that bug reports concerning your
  system should not be sent to the maintainers of Standard
===================================================== modguide.tex extract

Now this is certainly not an approriate way that we losened up the licensee
text outside the license. But we would be prepared to have this reworked that
it actually becomes part of the license as long as the phrasing is not killing
the underlying goal: which is to protect the ULL within the contect of a LaTeX
implementation (in contrast to a nonlatex fork).

Does this clearify the situation?


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

Reply to: