On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 16:03, Mark Rafn wrote: > Still don't get it. You're either requiring modified work to follow a > specific API, which is IMO non-free, or you don't get the desired > protection against impostors, as a modified work could simply return the > latex identifier.
I still don't see how the API is restricted. > > > A different name to humans. A different package name, sure. In some > > > cases, a different executable name (This would be problematic if it > > > were broad enough). A different name in it's API? I don't think that > > > follows. > > > > Why not? Why does embedding the name in a registration call offend you? > > For the same reason that limiting the API of any program would be > non-free. I also wouldn't accept a C library that disallowed calling a > modified function "printf". OK. But: printf("This is Standard LaTeX\n"); is not allowed, and the restriction is allowed by the DFSG. What is the difference between that and the following? register_std("LaTeX"); (Which, as I understand it, is a C equivalent to the \NeedsTeXFormat thing.) Remember that the only condition imposed on modifying the file would be that you have to pick some other string to pass to register_std(). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]