Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 11:50, Mark Rafn wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > The filename limitations are now optional; 5.a.1 is one possibility of
> > three. As for 5.a.2 and the programmatic identification strings, can
> > you elaborate? Considering that much of the wording in the license is
> > mine (including 5.a.2), it's entirely possible that the parts you object
> > to are because of my poor wording and are not a fundamental difference.
> 5.a.1 restricts filenames (worse, filenames which are part of an API).
> 5.a.2 Prevents modifications on certain systems (those using a validating
> Base Format).
No; it merely maintains that, if you have a validating Base Format, you
must ensure that the status of the file is not misrepresented. How you
ensure that is up to you.
For example, you could rip out the validator, or disable it, or cause it
to always fail, or cause it to validate something besides "Standard
LaTeX". Or you could change the file to say "not standard".
> 5.a.3 doesn't apply without an additional grant of permission from
> somewhere else.
> None of these alternatives describe free software.
I believe that 5.a.2 does, or intends to - though, again, I and the
LaTeX Project are willing to discuss alternative wording.
> I take your point about 5b - if this is intended to refer to non-api
> strings like copyright information and such that may be spit out, I have
> no objection. I'm still a bit uncomfortable with this, as I recall from
> the previous discussion something about using these strings to validate
> modules. You might consider GPL-like wording for this.
Well, in terms of being uncomfortable, I can't disagree with you. I
still maintain my fundamental disagreement with the LaTeX Project on
their goals. However, I'm sure they would consider the distictions
we're making unimportant, which is fine. We're not trying to get one
side or the other to capitulate; we're trying to bridge between the
Jeff Licquia <email@example.com>