On Fri, Jul 26, 2002 at 11:58:46AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote: > > The "option 3" you propose would entail that two directory trees > > existed, one which is the original LaTeX, and one where the kernel is > > modified and renames but the rest of the files (say, third-party style > > files) may be modified *without* renaming. Thus there would still > > be a danger if the search path for the pristine software were to be > > contaminated with references to the hacked tree. > > That is correct. However, causing a hacked, non-renamed, non-retokened > file to be loaded and run by Standard LaTeX would be a license > violation. No. Only distributing a modified LaTeX such that it would do so should be a license violation. Otherwise the license would not be DFSG. Remember, "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor". How one *uses* the software must not be restricted. The LaTeX folks are within their rights to insist that people not distribute a thing that claims to be Standard LaTeX if it is not. But distribution is not use/loading/running. -- G. Branden Robinson | Never underestimate the power of Debian GNU/Linux | human stupidity. branden@debian.org | -- Robert Heinlein http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgp9ReBeUqL1H.pgp
Description: PGP signature