LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project


Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Frank Mittelbach <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Tue, 1 Aug 2017 16:47:32 +0200
text/plain (28 lines)
Am 01.08.17 um 16:34 schrieb Arthur Reutenauer:
>    Hence Will is correct in stating that the LPPL does not require
> changing the filename, right?  The “most important thing” in his words
> (“lowest common denominator” in yours), is that the new file identify
> itself as a modified version.  The recommendation that follows is a
> different thing.

He is right that LPPL does not enforce 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