Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
Frank Mittelbach <email@example.com> wrote:
> 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.
Actually, this is a good reason for someone to use the standard
facility, not for the license to require the standard facility. All
that you really care about is that the information gets to the user,
not how it gets to them.