LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project


Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 19:24:11 +0200
Content-Disposition: inline
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Message-ID: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
From: Arthur Reutenauer <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (29 lines)
> He is right that LPPL does not enforce this.

  Thank you for confirming this.

> But Werner is looking for something that works well for himself and for his
> users and will made 3 suggestions for this
> a) ask the maintainer - good :-)
> b) do an in situ change (as LPPL allows that) - not good, such code could
> for exmaple not appear on CTAN
> c) provide the changed code under a new name and tell LaTeX that the orginal
> package has already been loaded - good again
> as you pointed out Werner was a little vague in whether or not this is local
> to himself or not. If it is local, then by all means it would be fine to
> just use \typeout or \ProvidePackage but if the intention is to distribute
> alongside his documentation a patched package (even if that package is only
> intended for this particular documentaton then this is not so good and I
> think Werner means the latter

  I’m not questioning that (although we could have a discussion about
what “in situ” means); I was only asking about the details of how the
LPPL is supposed to be interpreted in this case.  As you know, I’ve had
to answer similar questions in the past, so I’m always interested in the
opportunity to clarify the issue.