Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
Barak Pearlmutter <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Maybe instead of sinking further and further into little details of
> how files are verified to be standard LaTeX and the distinction
> between the LaTeX engine and the files it reads and all that good
> stuff, we could back up a step? This all really an attempt to
> procedurally implement an underlying concern. Maybe the concern
> itself could be directly expressed in the license, abstracted away
> from its implementation?
> Something like this:
> You must not cause files to misrepresent themselves as approved by
> the official LaTeX maintenance group, or to misrepresent
> themselves as perfectly compatible with such files (according to
> compatibility criteria established by the official LaTeX
> maintenance group).
> Would this satisfy the LaTeX people? Because I think it would satisfy
> the DFSG. It might (arguably, perhaps) even be GPL compatible, if the
> authorship representation parts of the GPL are properly construed.
No. The problem is this: does this ban the following code snippet:
% This is not actually standard LaTeX, but we do this for ease of use:
The LaTeX people are explicitly unhappy with this -- they want a ban
on something which programmatically interfaces in certain ways with
Standard LaTeX. The DFSG will accept a ban on making false claims of
authorship to humans, but not a ban on making such false claims to a