On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 14:32, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: > 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? Remember to include in your imagined > > scenario that the unmodified Base Format will have a documented option > > to turn off validation. > > 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 am not clear how this would violate the license, or how this would make it DFSG-nonfree. (I'm also not clear why someone would want to do such a thing. Such a modified version could not be called "Standard", meaning that the validator would be validating against a standard that did not exist.) > The freeness of a license should be as divorced as possible from > accidents of implementation. We talk a lot about *shoulds*. Let it be recognized by everyone that the LaTeX Project has a different set of *shoulds* than we do. I would prefer that they use the GPL, personally, but that isn't going to happen. -- Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>