On Fri, 2002-07-26 at 10:57, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 02:14:18PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote: > > The license text would say something like this: > > > > ----- > > The Program may be modified in any way as long as one of the following > > conditions are met: > > > > - No part of Standard LaTeX is changed. > > The License should define what is meant by "Standard LaTeX".
Definitely noted. The second-to-last paragraph may provide some hints as to how that will happen. > > - The Program does not represent itself as Standard LaTeX in any way, > > including the name and any diagnostic output. > > > > The Project distributes a file with the Program, foo.tex, that describes > > some procedures we have set up to allow derived works to fulfill these > > conditions. > > "to allow" is a poor choice of words, because it suggests that there is > a finite number of ways to comply with the license. As we discussed in > personal conversation, I feel that licenses should communicate policy, > not mechanism. I suggest: > > "The Project distributes a file with the Program, foo.tex, that > enumerates some methods you can use for creating derived works without > violating the terms of this License. As long as your modifications > satisfy one of the above requirements, exactly how you make them is up > to you." > > The second sentence may be deemed unnecessary; I'm just trying to steer > the language to a result-driven orientation. Noted. The "to allow" thing is, I agree, a poor choice of words. I might go so far as to call foo.tex a list of "recommendations", as long as people are allowed to be imaginative. > > LaTeX contributors who value the ability to preserve compatibility > > could, under this license, be careful not to collide with another file > > s/could/should/ ? I'm trying to avoid any implication of normative talk when describing my idea. The LaTeX people can say things like "should" if they like. > > Please let me know whether this would work for you. I'm interested both > > in the LaTeX Project's reaction and Debian's. > > I have no fundamental objection to the language you have proposed, but > please take my nitpicks into account. :) > > To be more clear, I do not think the license language you have proposed > has any DFSG 3 or DFSG 4 problems. Excellent. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]