Re: Encoding the name in the file contents (was Re: Towards a new LPPL draft)
On Tue, 2002-07-30 at 10:16, Mark Rafn wrote:
>
> > >If the situation allows for the renaming of only a few things--and
> > >only user commands, really--then I don't mind *that* much. If the
> > >situation requires the renaming of a jillion things, then I mind.
>
> I'd go further than Thomas. I'm torn between "No renaming, nohow noway"
> and "If it requires renaming only because it's acting as a poor-man's
> trademark, I'll put up with it".
>
> "LaTeX" is a trademarkeable name (IMO), and requiring that something not
> be called that if it's modified is allowable. "article" is not, and
> cannot be so restricted.
Yes, but I don't think that's the problem here.
>From what I've seen, I don't think the LaTeX Project cares in the
slightest what the inode that points to any particular file contains.
They're much more concerned with what happens when you issue the TeX
command to load a module of a particular name.
In essence, they want to bind particular modules to the name "LaTeX",
and also provide a mechanism for third parties to bind their own modules
to that name if they wish.
> On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, David Carlisle wrote:
> > That is the situuation we are in here. LPPL has proved popular.There are
> > hundreds (jillions) of independently distributed packages using the
> > same licence.
>
> I don't find it unreasonable to reject a package based on the number or
> scope of filename limitations. This leads to the conclusion that we might
> accept the exact same files if they were in 10 independent packages but
> reject them if they were all in one. If pushed, I will concede that this
> is illogical, and the rule should really be "filename limitations make a
> package non-free"
Depending, of course, on what you mean by "filename limitations". We do
explicitly allow limits on the name of the program; any reasonable
interpretation of "carry a different name... from the original software"
could probably be argued for.
The fallacy of difficulty is probably rooted in trying to nail down what
"carrying a different name" means. This is especially true if you
interpret the many different modules of LaTeX as separate works (as the
LaTeX Project seems to do); while this might meet some definition of
"carry a different name", it imposes a burden on people modifying LaTeX
that is seen to be "too difficult". And that way lies madness.
I think it's preferable, however, to focus on what is really important:
the association of the name "LaTeX" with a stable product, which is a
goal everyone is agreed upon, and which (it seems) is even a goal that
is compatible with the DFSG.
Reply to: