[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)

Frank Mittelbach <frank.mittelbach@latex-project.org> writes:
>> Jeff Licquia <licquia@debian.org> writes:

>>> Except that you can't make GPL code validate with the LPPL
>>> validator, since the GPL and LPPL are not compatible.  So, since
>>> there's no danger that the code will be run through the validator
>>> and identify itself as "standard", the GPL satisfies 7a.  So the
>>> GPL is a valid license to relicense LPPL code under.
>>> (At least, that's my understanding.)
> I'm not sure that i understand Jeff here. the intention of 7a is
> that if FOO is under LPPL, then a derived work made from FOO honors
> 5a, ie, it does not claim to the user that it is the original FOO
> either via 5a1 or 5a2 (5a3 is irrelevant as this is "a general do
> what you like" for certain files, so for the discussion we can
> assume that FOO is not of this type)

He's saying (assuming I'm understanding properly) that since you can't
incorporate GPL files into latex (since the LPPL isn't GPL compatible)
making a file GPL is enough to ensure that the file will never
misrepresent itself to latex -- since it can never be used with latex
at all.

But I pointed out that one could imagine someone writing a GPL version
of the latex base, in which case files intended to be used with the
gpl latex (which are gpl'd, and perhaps based years ago on an LPPL'd
file) could be put together with the LPPL latex.

If that remote possibility is a problem, and from your comment it is,
then there's no way I could relicense an LPPL'd file as GPL, even for
use in my terminal emulation program (for example).

Jeremy Hankins <nowan@nowan.org>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333  9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03

Reply to: