Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff
>>>>>> On Tue, 6 Aug 2002 08:08:52 -0600 (MDT), "Joe Moore"
>>>>>> <joemoore@iegrec.org> said:
>> Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>>> But can I modify the behavior of any part of LaTeX, including what
>>> happens when I load article.sty?
>
>> Yes. But in order to do so, you either have to:
>> 1) request such a change in your document (\documentclass{myarticle},
>> or \renewcommand\documentclass or something like that)
>
> That doesn't meet the stated goal, of silently changing what happens
> when \documentclass{article} is used to load a file called article.sty.
Yes, it does (literally) Now that I think about it, it meets one of the
LaTeX project's goals (use of non-standard LaTeX requires a conscious
decision), but not Thomas's.
It does, though, since LaTeX is interpreted, and can override any aspect of
article.sty at any time.
The first parenthetical option (change the name to myarticle) I would
classify as an API change, which would be a non-free _requirement_. The
second I would classify as an "excessive burden", which would be a non-free
_requirement_.
>
>> or
>> 2) Modify latex.ltx so that it looks for myarticle.sty when a document
>> asks for article.sty (but since latex.ltx is covered by the LPPL, you
>> would have to change the name of it, invoking it by a different name
>> such as notLaTeX)
>
> Again, that doesn't meet the stated goal, since it requires a file
> myarticle.sty and doesn't actually load article.sty.
Right. But it's only one of the options. By itself, this would probably be
a non-free _requirement_.
>
>> or
>> 3) Place your modified article.sty in a different location, where
>> "pristine" LaTeX will not pick it up and behave silently different.
>
> That's a requirement which restricts the functional modifications
> which may be made, and additionally does not appear in any LPPL draft
> I've seen. I'd *love* to get a look at the latest draft, since I
> think it might clear up some of the confusion on both sides.
I don't think it makes any functional restrictions. Only that it has to be
located outside of the default search path.
Or combine 2) and 3) and make the default search path of notLaTeX include
your modifications.
>
> Oh, and you forgot
>
> 4) Create a new article.sty and drop it into place. If what's been
> said about each representation in LaTeX code having a wholly
> different meaning, creative expression in the language is
> impossible, and you could crib a great deal from article.sty (which
> Frank's asserted is purely functional, and not a creative work)
> without violating any copyrights.
I'm not sure I understand your representation of Frank's assertion there, or
how it impacts copyrights. Is there some part of copyright law that
restricts applicability for functional works?
--Joe
Reply to: