Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)

[Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu>]

Jeff Licquia <licquia@debian.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-04-02 at 02:06, Walter Landry wrote:
> > >      2. If the file is used directly by the Base Format when run, and
> > >         the Base Format provides a facility for such files to be
> > >         validated as being original parts of The Work, then the file
> > >         does not represent itself as being the unmodified original
> > >         Work.  This does not imply that the Base Format must provide
> > >         such a facility; only that, if such a facility is available,
> > >         it must be used in the normal way and it must enable the Base
> > >         Format to validate as being modified.  If the Base Format does
> > >         not provide such a file validation facility, then the file may
> > >         be modified without reference to such a facility.
> > 
> > I think that this is not good enough.  This sounds a lot like "trusted
> > computing".  There are valid reasons to want to run untrusted
> > versions.  This is basically a restriction on what kinds of
> > modification you can make.
> 
> Yes, but note the "if".  It is perfectly legal to disable or remove the
> "trust" provisions of the code, in which case you have no obligation
> regarding the other parts of the code.
> 
> I agree that *requiring* the use of the trust facilities is bad; I'm
> attempting to make it possible for LaTeX to be able to rely on the
> trust facilities in "Standard LaTeX" while maintaining the freedom
> to ignore it for "non-Standard LaTeX".

That's good, but only if you're able to modify the Base Format.  It is
easy to imagine scenarios where you are able to modify individual
files, but not the validation mechanism.  What the LaTeX people have
to do is make it technically difficult for altered versions to
validate.  Not make it illegal for altered versions to validate.

<snip>
> > >   b. You must change any identification string in any modified file of
> > >      the Derived Work to indicate clearly that the modified file is
> > >      not part of The Work in its original form.
> > >
> > >   c. In every file of the Derived Work you must ensure that any
> > > addresses
> > >      for the reporting of errors do not refer to the Current
> > > Maintainer's
> > >      addresses in any way.
> > 
> > Strings for other programs (think browser id-strings) must be
> > modifiable to anything at all.  Strings strictly for human consumption
> > can be required to indicate that it is different.
> 
> How would you word this differently to avoid this problem?

b. For any modified file of the Derived Work, you must clearly
   indicate, preferably within the file itself, that the modified file
   is not part of the The Work in its original form.

c. You must make ensure that any addresses for the reporting of errors in
   the Derived Work do not refer to the Current Maintainer's address
   in any way.

The changes to b) are more important than the changes to c).

Regards,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu