Re: Concluding the LPPL debate, try 2
On Fri, 2002-07-26 at 14:18, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2002 at 11:58:46AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > 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.
Uh, yeah. I was just, uh, testing you. :-)
(Jeez. I really should be more careful how I word things.)
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org