"MS" == Martin Schroeder <[log in to unmask]>
"LD" == Loic Dachary <[log in to unmask]>
LD> I think the LPPL is trying to define and enforce a
LD> distribution policy within the license. This is a strange
LD> idea. Imagine what mess it would be if the Linux kernel
LD> imposed the same restrictions on system calls ?-) Instead
LD> a specification was issued
LD> (http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/) to
LD> encourage the necessary standardization and
LD> uniformity. Defining a standard interface and behaviour is
LD> a complex matter that can hardly be implemented by a
MS> "The Single UNIX® Specification, Version 2" -- which I
MS> find irrelevant here.
Yes, the specification is irrelevant, but Loic's point was that a
license cannot force standardization; that job has to be left to a
group of interested parties who draft a standards document that
define what bits make up a complete system, how they interact,
their interface, what sort of output they produce, and so on.
In other words, he wasn't suggesting you look at the document
because it would tell you anything about LaTeX, he was suggesting
that the process that produced the document is worth looking at.
(And perhaps that the document itself might serve as a model for a
The basic idea here is that if you want to keep LaTeX pure, you
can take one of two approaches:
1. Impose a restrictive, non-free license that prevents
modification of key components
2. Develop an open standard that defines the behavior of the
system in a testable way
Man cannot be civilised, or be kept civilised by what he does in his
spare time; only by what he does as his work.
C.M. Connelly [log in to unmask] SHC, DS