Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
On Wed, 2003-04-02 at 19:13, Walter Landry wrote:
> Jeff Licquia <email@example.com> wrote:
> > 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.
That's basically the idea. *If* there is a validation mechanism, and
*if* the module uses the validation mechanism to assert it is "Standard
LaTeX", then when you change the file, you must ensure that the module
does not validate as "Standard LaTeX". This can be done by removing the
validation mechanism from the base or by causing the file in question to
not report itself as standard.
> > > 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).
Jeff Licquia <firstname.lastname@example.org>