[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 19:29, Mark Rafn wrote:
> > 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.

If the Base Format itself is free, why is this non-free?

> 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.

Well, right, but that doesn't affect the freeness of the Base Format, so
I don't see how it's a contamination of the other software's license.

> > 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 
> validation.  

Sounds fine to me, unless I'm missing something.
Jeff Licquia <licquia@debian.org>

Reply to: