Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
Mark Rafn writes:
> On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > AFAIU, what the authors of the LPPL draft is trying to express is
> > nothing more or less than
> > 1. You must make your modified package output to the screen a message
> > that it isn't Standard LaTeX.
> Would it be possible to use GPL wording for this? The ability NOT to do
> this when written for non-interactive use is important.
can you enlighten me here? I understand why that is important in case of GPL
but here it is the base format that is already interactive. remember that this
is only a rewrite of 5a2 by Henning to illustrate the underlying intention
> > 2. If the environment where your modified package is intended to be
> > used provides a documented standard way of emitting such messages
> > to the screen, you must use that.
> I'll need more thought about this. A requirement to use a specified
> facility seems unfree to me at first sniff, but I could (yet again) be
> reading too much into it.
i hope you do (read too much into it) and that we can find a form in which
this is not the case since it is not our intention.
Brian T. Sniffen writes:
> > Would it be possible to use GPL wording for this? The ability NOT to do
> > this when written for non-interactive use is important.
> I seem to recall a line of argument that this is OK when only a small
> number of things do it, but non-free in cases where hundreds of
> components must do so (say, system boot time, or LaTeX). Thousands of
> lines of "this is non-Standard LateX" flying by would prevent use in
> many circumstances; would a single, collected "This is non-Standard
> Latex; see logfile for which components are non-Standard" meet the
> LaTeX group's requirements?
this is precisely one of the reasons why we want (2) ie to require that the
standard facility is used. that enables the base format to provide only that
single message and refer to the log for details.