Re: Encoding the name in the file contents (was Re: Towards a new LPPL draft)
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> Frank Mittelbach <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > I must confess that i havea bit of a problem to understand the exchange
> > between you and Henning, but could you please be more precise about
> > - which freedom is taken away from all users, and
> > - which freedom is given to a subset
> You have represented that all LaTeX users expect pristine files when
> they use the usual filenames. I claim that you have no way to know
> what all LaTeX users expect, and Henning says "well, many do expect
> that, if not all".
well, "all" user expect that for LPPL licensed files at the moment because
that is what the license ensures. But Henning is of course, right that I can't
predict whether or not they actually believe, that people following the
license so, "well, many do expect that, if not all" is the more appropriate
this is like stating all users of debian expect that the debian software
in main is complient with the DSFG, they could expect it logically (because
that is the definition of "main" but you may have some that don't believe it
to be true.
> Those who do not expect pristine files--for whatever reason, 200 years
> from now, for example, or people doing weird wacky things you've never
> thought of, or who know perfectly well what they are doing in changing
> a file and therefore *don't* expect a "pristine" version--those people
> have a freedom removed by the renaming requirement.
no, those do not but as i tried to explain elsewhere, their freedom to do
wacky things or to change this to produce different results (of any kind) is
not hampered by the requirements (more than one alternative! in the proposed
new version of LPPL!) of LPPL.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org