On 23 Jul 2002, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 21:17, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
> > The question here is how to guarantee that a changed overcite.sty
> > (without renaming) will not be used with pristine LaTeX, right?
This is insanity. If this is the goal, just choose a nice simple license
"this can be used and distributed verbatim at no charge, but you may not
modify it without permission from the current maintainer".
> > LPPL in case of modification without renaming could, for example,
> > require to change an argument of \NeedsTeXFormat macro, i.e. to
> > replace
> >
> > \NeedsTeXFormat{LaTeX2e}
> >
> > in overcite.sty by something like
> >
> > \NeedsTeXFormat{sniffenlatex}
Requiring filename changes is objectionable at least partly because it's
hard to distinguish filename from the use of the program. A license that
mandates API changes doesn't even pass the sniff test.
> This is an intriguing idea. It appears to satisfy the need for LaTeX to
> ensure that a hacked file doesn't get run with pristine LaTeX while not
> running afoul of the DFSG.
How does this not run afoul of the DFSG? It places even worse limits on
modification than the previous attempts?
--
Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.dagon.net/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
