[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)

> > Jeff Licquia <licquia@debian.org> 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".

> On Wed, 2003-04-02 at 19:13, Walter Landry wrote:
> > 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.

On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> 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.

It still depends on the platform that runs it to determine whether the
modification is allowed.  It may be that this is free when distributed
with a base format that does no such validation and non-free otherwise.

By the way, say I do this (I make a modification for use on my  
non-validating base format, and I don't change the validation signature 
because I don't have to under the last sentence of 5.a.2).  And then give 
the file to my friend, who has a base format which DOES validate.  Nothing 
prevents him using or distributing this file (which is just the Work I 
gave him, he's not modifying it), right?
Mark Rafn    dagon@dagon.net    <http://www.dagon.net/>  

Reply to: