Scripsit Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > no. *each* file that you change must be renamed, but where is the problem > here? I think it has also been demonstrated that is neither excessive nor in > conflict with DSFG 3+4
I still think it can be viewed as excessive. Let me explain. Imagine that I want to create a typesetting system that behaves just like LaTeX on all input files, except that input files that say something like \documentclass[12pt]{article} will actually be typeset with a 13-point font (and similarly for the other standard classes). Note that I have deliberately selected an extremely silly task, because I already conceded that I can think of no non-silly reasons to want to fork LaTeX although I do care for the theoretical ability to fork nevertheless. Now, the technically sane way to achieve my goal would be to make some small modifications to size12.clo, or whereever in classes.dtx the lines in size12.clo come from. To do this, I'd have to change the name of size12.clo - I suppose the intention of the LPPL is that it will not be enough for me to rename classes.dtx and have the renamed .dtx file generate a size12.clo with nonstandard contents. However, when I modify the name of size12.clo I need to make sure that article.cls can find my modified file. For example, article.cls contains something like [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] so I need to modify that logic; otherwise things will not work. Similarly for report.cls and letter.cls. OK, so I have to rename the standard classes. But since I want source compatibility (of a sort...) with LaTeX, a document that says \documentclass[12pt]{article} must be able to find my changed and renamed article.cls. And what's more, my boundary conditions for the fork are that if the user has written his own class file that says \LoadClass{article} that one, too, must inherit the different behavior of the 12pt option from the standard class. That sends me messing with the class-loading code in the kernel. I do not protest about having to call my kernel something else than latex.ltx even if I didn't change its functional contents, and nothing references the kernel by name anyway, so the renaming cascade stops here - unless I've overlooked some other filename interaction. However, look at the net effect of the cascade. What I initially wanted to do was a simple change of a few decimal numbers in the .clo file. Now, as the result of the renaming rule and only the renaming rule, I find myself recoding some deep magic in the kernel which will probably require that I'm able to keep a dozen double-bend paragraphs from The TeXbook afloat in my head at once - in addition to knowing which double-bend paragraphs to load into my head in the first place. Personally I am megalomanic enough to believe I have memoized sufficiently large parts of The TeXbook to be able to make an attempt, and perhaps even have it work after a few days of debugging. But I certainly don't believe that everyone capable of changing a few numbers in the .clo file will be able to do it. So the morale I'm aiming at is that the renaming rule will prevent some people from doing modifications that they would otherwise be technically competent to do. > Note that there are many individual works (each consisting typically > of a small number of files) that are licensed these days under LPPL. Point taken. So I agree that all packages do not have to be renamed. BTW, is there an easy way to figure out which collections of files constitute a work? In the teTeX installation I do my daily work with, texmf/tex/latex/base contains 123 files - are they all one work, or are they divided somehow? > > I'm confused about what you mean here. Since it already has been > > established that the ideal goals seem to be compatible, why do you > > insist that we "come back" to that question instead of moving on to > > "reformulating it so that everything gets clearer"? > is it established? if so fine, I wasn't so sure seeing arguments like > But we can not tolerate means to reach this goal, that are > against our principles, against our ethics. On Debian lists there'll always be random fallout from earlier phases of the discussion - I'm guilty of this myself sometimes. However, I think the guy that you quote here was merely stating an intention to work on finding alternative means to reach your goal that does not clash with our pinciples. (Here I'm deliberately overlooking the possible interpretation that he was flaming, which is best overlooked even if it should happen to be true). Some disclaimers: Yes, I am aware that the points I make here apply equally well to the current licence of LaTeX. No, that doesn't mean that I'm arguing that LaTeX should be dropped from Debian immediately until such time that we can persuade the LaTeX project to change its licence. Although some of the more zealous (and influental?) regulars on debian-legal might well hold that opinion. I usually argue the idea that a few select pieces of software, including (La)TeX and Emacs, are so universally desired that realpolitik forces us to be slightly lenient with the aspects of their licenses that we wouldn't like if they were attached to less essential programs. However it would be silly to maintain that position while the upstream author in question is acutally listening and trying to be cooperative. -- Henning Makholm "Detta, sade de, vore rena sanningen; ty de kunde tala sanning lika väl som någon annan, när de bara visste vad det tjänade til." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]