On Thu, 2002-07-18 at 19:16, Mark Rafn wrote: > On 18 Jul 2002, Jeff Licquia wrote: > > > > Thanks, but no thanks. I do not want you to have this freedom. I do > > > not want you to send me these "maybe altered" weights. I do not want > > > you to be able to send them to anybody. I abhor the thought that my > > > business associates, colleagues or anybody else might use your weights > > > UNKNOWINGLY. You have the right to distribute any weights as long as > > > you call them deb-kilograms or Pickwickian kilograms -- but please do > > > not meddle with the standard weights. > > > > This is a restriction the Debian Project can live with. > > We can? I guess this is the danger of analogies. We can live with a > restriction that an altered "kilogram" program may not have it's default > invocation named "kilogram". I hope we would not accept a package which > specified that any derived work's output may not refer to 950g as a > kilogram.
No, but I think Boris is more concerned with your former example than your latter one. Think of it as fraud; a hacked LaTeX is calling itself "LaTeX" fraudulently, as it were, just as a 950g "kilogram" is fraudulent. There's nothing wrong with making a 950g weight so long as it doesn't pass itself off as a 1000g weight. Similarly, it would seem that the LaTeX Project doesn't really mind people hacking on LaTeX as long as it's not called "latex". > Here's another analogy: > > Would you accept a mapping program that specified that Taiwan may not be > shown in a color different from China? Even if the authors only wanted to > ensure that all users got consistent output on different distributions? I would think that this is a problem. I'm not sure it relates to Boris's objection, however. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
