Re: Concluding the LPPL debate, try 2
On Fri, 2002-07-26 at 10:57, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 02:14:18PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > The license text would say something like this:
> > -----
> > The Program may be modified in any way as long as one of the following
> > conditions are met:
> > - No part of Standard LaTeX is changed.
> The License should define what is meant by "Standard LaTeX".
Definitely noted. The second-to-last paragraph may provide some hints
as to how that will happen.
> > - The Program does not represent itself as Standard LaTeX in any way,
> > including the name and any diagnostic output.
> > The Project distributes a file with the Program, foo.tex, that describes
> > some procedures we have set up to allow derived works to fulfill these
> > conditions.
> "to allow" is a poor choice of words, because it suggests that there is
> a finite number of ways to comply with the license. As we discussed in
> personal conversation, I feel that licenses should communicate policy,
> not mechanism. I suggest:
> "The Project distributes a file with the Program, foo.tex, that
> enumerates some methods you can use for creating derived works without
> violating the terms of this License. As long as your modifications
> satisfy one of the above requirements, exactly how you make them is up
> to you."
> The second sentence may be deemed unnecessary; I'm just trying to steer
> the language to a result-driven orientation.
Noted. The "to allow" thing is, I agree, a poor choice of words. I
might go so far as to call foo.tex a list of "recommendations", as long
as people are allowed to be imaginative.
> > LaTeX contributors who value the ability to preserve compatibility
> > could, under this license, be careful not to collide with another file
> s/could/should/ ?
I'm trying to avoid any implication of normative talk when describing my
idea. The LaTeX people can say things like "should" if they like.
> > Please let me know whether this would work for you. I'm interested both
> > in the LaTeX Project's reaction and Debian's.
> I have no fundamental objection to the language you have proposed, but
> please take my nitpicks into account. :)
> To be more clear, I do not think the license language you have proposed
> has any DFSG 3 or DFSG 4 problems.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org