On Fri, 2002-07-26 at 14:18, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Fri, Jul 26, 2002 at 11:58:46AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote: > > That is correct. However, causing a hacked, non-renamed, non-retokened > > file to be loaded and run by Standard LaTeX would be a license > > violation. > > No. Only distributing a modified LaTeX such that it would do so should > be a license violation. Otherwise the license would not be DFSG.
Uh, yeah. I was just, uh, testing you. :-) (Jeez. I really should be more careful how I word things.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
