>>>>> On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 18:46:18 +0200, Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> said: >> > If you think of LPPL applying to the whole of a LaTeX sty/cls >> > tree of files at once, we could, i think live with the idea (it >> > is even described so in modguide or cfgguide as a possible though >> > not encouraged solution (thereby actually violating the license >> > as it is right now)), that you produce sniffenlatex which has its >> > own complete tree and in there has identical file names to the >> > pristine LaTeX tree so that both trees live side by side. >> >> >From the objections I have seen in trying to wrap up this thread, >> >this >> is likely to be an important point. I would strongly advise making >> this concession if you can.
> as I exlained above I don't think it is a practical solution for > what you want and far more painful than anything else (for you) > unless as a result of this you start to only distribute nonLaTeX --- Yes, but it would allow a clearly DFSG-free fork, and provide all of the freedoms (modification and distribution) that the Debian project is asking for. It means that you can do one (big, annoying) thing, then patch and hack and modify as you please. That's an important feature. > and if that is the intention behind it then all the arguments "we > really don't want do this, we only want the right to be able to do > something if necessary" are simply off because then you are > essentially starting to produce a new nearly-latex distribution so > that the exchangability of documents would after a short period be > in real danger again. Please don't grant freedoms in your license under the expectation that they won't be used. I think you can have a reasonable expectation that they won't be intentionally abused, but if the LaTeX project were to use a license as suggested here (which required changing only the work name, not the file name), I'd expect to see a little fork pop up every few years and die from lack of use a few months later. I'd also expect to see some folks here wade through the thousands of files in LaTeX, collecting and sorting interlacing copyrights and licenses, and produce a "DfSgTeX" package, which contained only the DFSG-free parts of LaTeX, with the remaining parts amended so as not to use them, or patched so as to provide DFSG-free equivalents. >> Would it work for you to require the following? >> >> - if the whole is named "LaTeX", every changed file must be renamed >> >> - if the whole is named something else, files may be changed >> without >> renaming >> >> (We would need to come up with a suitable definition for "naming", >> of course.) > if there is provision that a pristine LaTeX is distributed as well > so that the user has the choice, probably, otherwise I think not. If you wrote a pointer to an authoritative source into the LPPL, would that cover the LaTeX project's requirements here? That would guarantee that a user not only receives notification that he didn't just call latex when he typed "sniffentex", but also that he has a pointer to the pristine LaTeX. Requiring that the tarball for SniffenTeX be no smaller than the tarball for LaTeX, since if I distribute a fork I must distribute a pristine LaTeX *with* it, would be unacceptable. If I'm an English-language bigot who wishes to remove babel and all references to it, and distribute that fork, I must have that right to be DFSG-free. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Security Engineer day: (617) 444-2642 cel: (617) 721-0927 Akamai Technologies eve: (781) 874-0699 pi: (314) 159-2654
pgpkqQOYgZTAF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
