Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
Frank Mittelbach <email@example.com> writes:
> Jeremy Hankins writes:
> > Hrm. So using a package file with LaTeX-Format is not analogous
> > to linking (i.e., doesn't result in a combined, derived work)?
> it is not at all like linking in my understanding. I take it that
> you are not familar with the TeX world. The best analogy that i can
> think of right now is this (there might be better ones):
I'm not all that knowledgeable about latex, but I do use it and I have
read the discussions here. So correct me if I'm wrong, but my
understanding is that a package file has a very intimate level of
contact with LaTeX-Format (and, in fact, other package files that are
currently loaded). It may rewrite other bits of code loaded by the
TeX binary, and even if that's not happening it has virtually
(completely?) unrestricted access (i.e., not restricted to an API) to
the other code.
Either of those seems to raise the possibility of creating a derived
work. Whether anything's compiled and whether anything resembling
linking is happening isn't really the issue.
Chances are this wouldn't be all that serious of a problem in any
case, though. As I said, GPL packages would need an exception to be
used with LaTeX-Format, but since they're clearly intended for use
with LaTeX-Format it can probably be assumed implicitly (IANAL, of
course). The only serious problem would be if any of them
incorporated GPL code from some other non-LaTeX project, where the
author of that code didn't clearly expect their code to be used with
LPPL'd code. I have a feeling this isn't terribly likely, but you
know better than I.
In other words, I'm just pointing out an issue to be aware of (or at
least, for GPL-licensed package authors to be aware of), not something
I think is a show-stopper.
Jeremy Hankins <firstname.lastname@example.org>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03