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

Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)

> On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 14:41, Mark Rafn wrote:
> > 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.

On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> I acknowledge that this may be true.  Regarding LaTeX, is it?

I don't know.  Does the current Base Format do any such validation?  If 
so (or if it becomes so), then it's a problem.  If not, then this clause 
is unnecessary.

Does this conflict with DFSG#9?  This license effectively insists that the
Base Format must be free software in order for the Work to be free.

> > 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?
> Distributing is a different matter.  Remember that the file must be
> combined with LaTeX, and the result cannot represent itself as Standard
> LaTeX when run.  So, if you distribute the file combined with LaTeX, you
> could be in violation of the license.

For me, the file is combined with my non-validating base format (UnLaTeX).  
For him, it's combined with his "standard" latex.  I'm not distributing
the file combined with latex, and neither is he.  We're both distributing
the file by itself.

He's allowed to redistribute under section 2, as he's not modifying it.  
I'm allowed to distribute under 5.a.2, as my Base Format does no such 
Mark Rafn    dagon@dagon.net    <http://www.dagon.net/>  

Reply to: