Re: Suggestion for dual-licensed LaTeX (was Re: Encoding the name in the file contents (was Re: Towards a new LPPL draft))
Frank Mittelbach <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> - anybody is free and invited to do whatever she likes with the code
> if there is no distribution
That doesn't count as "freedom", ok? If it doesn't include the
freedom to share, it might as well not exist as far as we are
> - anybody is free and invited to do whatever she likes with the code as long
> as the resulting work is not pretending to be the "original" part of the
> ULL. For this we offer three alternatives which can be used individually
> orin combination
> - if the remapping feature is used anything, any scrap of the code,
> can be individually replaced to do something else without any
> limitations. And replacement here is not cascading or anything
> that makes it difficult to use and it allows reinterpretation
> of data without any need to modify the data.
Right. The users are not allowed to have something called "latex"
which doesn't do exactly what you demand that "latex" should do.
THAT is the unfreedom, and you support it by a wild claim that all
users "expect" the "latex" program to always do exactly the same
thing--for all eternity.
> so you can be as wacky as you wish and and produce whatever results you want
> to obtain and it leaves nobody out who wishes to produce anything new or
No, you can't produce whatever results you want to obtain if the
result you want is a program called "latex" which doesn't behave in
the approved fashion.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org