Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)

[Jeff Licquia <licquia@debian.org>]

On Sun, 2003-04-06 at 01:05, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> 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?

You're getting the gist of what I intended to do, but (evidently) failed
miserably at.

> 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.

This might be a good start at rewording 5.a.2, though I'll let the LaTeX
people comment.

Part of the problem, though, involves programmatic interfaces for a
program to identify itself as "Standard LaTeX".  It must be clear that
any Derived Work not identifying itself as "Standard LaTeX" can be
modified/distributed with only certain non-controversial restrictions
(copyright notices, etc.)
-- 
Jeff Licquia <licquia@debian.org>