On Fri, Jul 26, 2002 at 09:27:00PM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
already the current license explicitly says that you can do whatever you wish
if you are not distributing it (the current license suggests that it is best
to always work as if you intend to distribute (because one day you might
Scripsit Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 2002-07-26 at 11:58, Jeff Licquia wrote:
On Thu, 2002-07-25 at 16:36, Henning Makholm wrote:
If you want to modify a package [say, one that is not part of the
core LaTeX distribution, but one whose author has independently
put
Henning Makholm writes:
Scripsit Boris Veytsman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why? If a file is outside the LaTeX search path, there is no reason to
keep it frozen. Actually the current LPPL explicitly gives you the
right to change a licensed file
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
On Thu, 2002-07-25 at 16:36, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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.
On Fri, 2002-07-26 at 11:58, Jeff Licquia wrote:
On Thu, 2002-07-25 at 16:36, Henning Makholm wrote:
If you want to modify a package [say, one that is not part of the
core LaTeX distribution, but one whose author has independently
put it under the LPPL], you must either
1)
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
On Fri, Jul 26, 2002 at 11:58:46AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
The option 3 you propose would entail that two directory trees
existed, one which is the original LaTeX, and one where the kernel is
modified and renames but the rest of the files (say, third-party style
files) may be modified
From: Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 26 Jul 2002 12:20:43 +0200
Erm .. the *current* LPPL you say, being LPPL version 1.2? I cannot
find any language in there that allows naming outside of the LaTeX
search path. There seems to be no exceptions to condition (3) about
not
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
Branden Robinson writes:
On Fri, Jul 26, 2002 at 11:58:46AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
The option 3 you propose would entail that two directory trees
existed, one which is the original LaTeX, and one where the kernel is
modified and renames but the rest of the files (say, third-party
Why? If a file is outside the LaTeX search path, there is no reason to
keep it frozen. Actually the current LPPL explicitly gives you the
right to change a licensed file without renaming it, if you place it
outside of the LaTeX search path. It does not recommend it, but is
allowed
Scripsit Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 Program does not represent itself as Standard LaTeX
From: Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 25 Jul 2002 23:36:22 +0200
I can't imagine that it would be acceptable for the LaTeX people that
a change in the LaTeX *kernel* would make it legal to hack in another
file that, from their point of wiev, is part of an entirely
different,
14 matches
Mail list logo
