> Freedom includes the right to do things that you (and even I) think
> are stupid. Debian stands for freedom.
And lppl is intended to give you the right to do stupid things (yes
you can do them), but without perjudicing the right of all latex
users to have a latex working correctly and with doc
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 09:38:47AM +0100, David Carlisle wrote:
>>> But you have *no* way to assure this, short of trademarking the name
>>> "latex".
>>
>> That is a very tired argument.
>> Of course it is true as written, but it ignores the fact that LPPL has
>> been remarkably successful in i
> OK, here's what I was thinking.
>
> Let's imagine something like LaTeX licensed under something like the
> LPPL, and let's also assume that I'm going to hack it.
>
> So, I edit "article.sty". OK, no problem; just rename it to
> "article-hacked.sty".
>
> Oops, now things aren't working right.
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 11:59:37AM +0200, Martin Schröder wrote:
>
>> This is absolutely relevant. LaTeX is just a set of macros run
>> through an interpreter. The interpreter happens to be some
>> implementation of TeX. The security problems will be in the
>> interpreter, not in the macros. And
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 12:55:43PM +0200, Javier Bezos wrote:
>>>> but the documents created using that distribution. If I get a
>>>> document by "John Smith" (somehow), how can I see if _his_
>>>> system had a modified latex?
>
> Others
Glenn Maynard said:
> If the core can be changed in any way without changing it directly,
> then you can break output exactly as well by this mechanism as you
> could by editing it directly.
So what...?
> If so, then there's no point in forcing people to use it; they can break
> stuff anyway.
>> This is a really good argument *in favour* of LPPL! If someone
>> adds support for Klingon by modifying the LaTeX kernel, the
>> resulting documents will have a restricted distribution
>> because they won't compile correctly in other systems. This
>> is an _actual_ restriction. But if instead a
>> The default installation of teTeX makes it extremly difficult (if
>> not impossible) to open any security holes. If you are really
>> concerned about security in TeX, you could and should enhance the
>> web2c TeX distribution, not LaTeX.
>
> Lots of people have made claims that their software
> I think Frank et al's concerns could be addressed fairly easily by
> requiring distributors of modified versions of the entire LaTeX suite
> to document the changes and include the location of that documentation
> in the diagnostic output of latex, and requiring distributors of
> modified version
9 matches
Mail list logo
