On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 17:24, William F Hammond wrote: > Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Let's imagine something like LaTeX licensed under something like the > > LPPL, and let's also assume that I'm going to hack it. > > > > So, I edit "article.sty". OK, no problem; just rename it to > > "article-hacked.sty". > > (You mean, I think, for LaTeX2E that you want to hack article.cls, > which is the LaTeX "article" class.) > > I'm dubious about the sanity of bring up here a dependence of "book" > on "article", and, in any event what I describe next is probably not > what I would actually do, but, granted your scenario, TDS and Kpathsea > become relevant.
Right. I imagine my usage of file names regarding LaTeX is causing shudders to creep up lots of spines. Even should the need arise, I'm sure I would be the last person you'd want hacking on LaTeX. :-) > It only gets touchy when others become involved. I'm not sure how it > might play "legally" when the desired scope might be, say, a group on > my local platform -- for which a texmf tree could be provided -- and > all group members consent. It becomes enormously serious if I want to > burn a CD with this hacked article.cls in a new GNU/Linux system's > main texmf tree. LPPL certainly should say that I must not call it > article.cls in that context. If the LPPL says this, then the LPPL is non-free. Remember: the DFSG does not mandate fraud. You can require that article.cls not advertise itself as "article" OR that your hacked LaTeX not identify itself as LaTeX; indeed, you have a lot of latitude in making sure that people know they're not running "standard whatever". But it must be possible for my hacked LaTeX to process standard LaTeX documents without a single change. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
