Re: LPPL and source-less distribution
Joachim Schrod wrote:
Jonathan Fine wrote:
I am not a license expert, but here is my take at this question:
I don't think that the passage quoted above is relevant here. We are not
talking about distributing a `Derived Work'. The question whether or not
source less distribution is allowed is IMO concerned with a `Compiled
Work'. Concerning that, we find in the LPPL:
A translation is an example of a derived work. In my opinion (I'm not
a lawyer), latex.fmt is a derived work
A derived work is a work where the source has been changed, not where
the source has been processed.
Go and ask your lawyer.
I think the FSF may have already asked a lawyer this question.
In the LGPL we read:
When a program is linked with a library, whether statically or using
a shared library, the combination of the two is legally speaking a
combined work, a derivative of the original library. The ordinary
General Public License therefore permits such linking only if the
entire combination fits its criteria of freedom. The Lesser General
Public License permits more lax criteria for linking other code with
This is an example of a derived work, where no change is made to the
This seems to contradict your broad statement:
> A derived work is a work where the source has been changed, not where
> the source has been processed.
Of course, showing that you are wrong does not show that I am right.
You may also ask on firstname.lastname@example.org, they have lots of
patience to discuss all kinds of license legalese with you.
I've copied this message to that list, and asked that followup go
to that list.
For the benefit of that list, 'latex.fmt' is a dumped execution
state of a program, namely TeX, which can be reloaded at high speed.
Inputs to the creation of latex.fmt include program files, such
as latex.ltx, font metric files, and hyphenation tables.