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
Sounds fine to me, unless I'm missing something.
Jeff Licquia <firstname.lastname@example.org>