Re: Concluding the LPPL debate, try 2
Scripsit Jeff Licquia <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> On Fri, 2002-07-26 at 11:58, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > On Thu, 2002-07-25 at 16:36, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > "If you want to modify a package [say, one that is not part of the
> > > core LaTeX distribution, but one whose author has independently
> > > put it under the LPPL], you must either
> > > 1) [do the renaming stuff], or
> > > 2) make sure that your modified package refuses to run on top of
> > > the standard LaTeX kernel."
> > > If this is correct, I don't think that option (2) is not a free
> > > option.
> Sorry for the extra followup, but it just struck me that I might have
> misparsed this. Are you saying that you think option 2 is DFSG-free?
I did indeed say so, but it's not what I meant. I erroneously typed
the wrong number of "not"s. What I really think is that it is *not*
free. (But the basic idea is not beyond repair - I'll post details
Henning Makholm "Individually, human beings are all dolts.>
<Collectively, they're a collection of dolts."
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org