On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 19:29, Mark Rafn wrote: > > On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 14:41, Mark Rafn wrote: > > > It still depends on the platform that runs it to determine whether the > > > modification is allowed. It may be that this is free when distributed > > > with a base format that does no such validation and non-free otherwise. > > On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Jeff Licquia wrote: > > I acknowledge that this may be true. Regarding LaTeX, is it? > > I don't know. Does the current Base Format do any such validation? If > so (or if it becomes so), then it's a problem. If not, then this clause > is unnecessary.
If the Base Format itself is free, why is this non-free? > Does this conflict with DFSG#9? This license effectively insists that the > Base Format must be free software in order for the Work to be free. Well, right, but that doesn't affect the freeness of the Base Format, so I don't see how it's a contamination of the other software's license. > > Distributing is a different matter. Remember that the file must be > > combined with LaTeX, and the result cannot represent itself as Standard > > LaTeX when run. So, if you distribute the file combined with LaTeX, you > > could be in violation of the license. > > For me, the file is combined with my non-validating base format (UnLaTeX). > For him, it's combined with his "standard" latex. I'm not distributing > the file combined with latex, and neither is he. We're both distributing > the file by itself. > > He's allowed to redistribute under section 2, as he's not modifying it. > I'm allowed to distribute under 5.a.2, as my Base Format does no such > validation. Sounds fine to me, unless I'm missing something. -- Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
