On Sun, 2003-04-06 at 01:05, Barak Pearlmutter wrote: > Maybe instead of sinking further and further into little details of > how files are verified to be standard LaTeX and the distinction > between the LaTeX engine and the files it reads and all that good > stuff, we could back up a step? This all really an attempt to > procedurally implement an underlying concern. Maybe the concern > itself could be directly expressed in the license, abstracted away > from its implementation?
You're getting the gist of what I intended to do, but (evidently) failed miserably at. > Something like this: > > You must not cause files to misrepresent themselves as approved by > the official LaTeX maintenance group, or to misrepresent > themselves as perfectly compatible with such files (according to > compatibility criteria established by the official LaTeX > maintenance group). > > Would this satisfy the LaTeX people? Because I think it would satisfy > the DFSG. It might (arguably, perhaps) even be GPL compatible, if the > authorship representation parts of the GPL are properly construed. This might be a good start at rewording 5.a.2, though I'll let the LaTeX people comment. Part of the problem, though, involves programmatic interfaces for a program to identify itself as "Standard LaTeX". It must be clear that any Derived Work not identifying itself as "Standard LaTeX" can be modified/distributed with only certain non-controversial restrictions (copyright notices, etc.) -- Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
