Re: Suggestion for dual-licensed LaTeX (was Re: Encoding the name in the file contents (was Re: Towards a new LPPL draft))
On Sat, 2002-07-27 at 11:53, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> 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.
Just so we're clear, there are two versions of that (un)freedom.
People should be able to modify LaTeX on their own systems, and indeed
they shall be allowed to (when the kinks are worked out of the LPPL).
The DFSG does allow that the copyright holder may require distributors
of modified versions to rename the work, however.
I don't represent that it's invalid to argue against the latter, but I
am also wary of misrepresenting our requirements.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org