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

Re: Concluding the LPPL debate, try 2

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: pgpNhT14akOmw.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: