On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 16:50, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: > Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Scripsit Brian T. Sniffen > >> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > Scripsit Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >> >> That's good, but only if you're able to modify the Base Format. It is > >> >> easy to imagine scenarios where you are able to modify individual > >> >> files, but not the validation mechanism. > > > >> > Could you please imagine one? > > > >> Sure: I take the Base Format and make a functional change to it, > >> removing the option to turn off validation. Now I distribute this > >> under your draft LPPL.
I'm going to note, for the record, that I don't see how this makes the software non-free. So, I don't yet believe that implementation details can make the software non-free. (But stay tuned.) > It is not possible to distribute non-free software under the MIT/X11 > license, for example. But it is possible to do so under the GFDL (so the argument goes). > Given that you and Jeff are proposing this license in isolation, > without providing the code implementing the feature which makes this > free, or even a good specification for it, I find it strange that > you're now arguing that it's wrong to insist that a license be clearly > free in isolation. Do you want us to post a tarball of LaTeX? Alternatively, if you have questions about implementation, could you not ask the LaTeX people? I've seen David Carlisle, at least, post to this thread. -- Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
