Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 20:49, Walter Landry wrote:
> Jeff Licquia <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 14:38, Walter Landry wrote:
> > > I get the feeling that this license is being considered only in the
> > > context of LaTeX, not in the context of all of free software. We
> > > can't say that it is ok to use this license for LaTeX, but not for
> > > Mozilla, Apache, Samba and OpenSSH.
> > Why not? We aren't proposing relicensing anything under this license
> > except for LaTeX itself.
> If a program suddenly becomes non-free when you make a certain
> modification, then it was never free to begin with.
So you do not acknowledge that a particular license might contain
elements that are specific to the problem domain?
Remember, also, that code taken out of LaTeX can be relicensed to fit
your needs, as long as 5a is respected. Taking a piece of code,
relicensing it under the GPL, and making it a part of GNOME (which
doesn't have a validator as described in the license) would be a good
example. You couldn't reintegrate that code into LaTeX anyway without
changing LaTeX (unless you were reintegrating it to make it exactly like
a released version of LaTeX, which is explicitly allowed), which would
require that you mark it as non-standard, change the file name, etc.
This example seems to indicate that your main problem with the validator
is that it seems like a programmatic restriction. If it were made more
clear that this is not the case, would this satisfy you? How would you
Jeff Licquia <email@example.com>