Sender: |
|
Mime-version: |
1.0 |
Date: |
Wed, 17 Jul 2002 10:04:10 +0200 |
Reply-To: |
|
Content-type: |
text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-transfer-encoding: |
7bit |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
> Here is a hypothetical. Let's say that someone wants to add support for
> Klingon into Latex. So they hack something together which, by necessity,
> changes a few standard files, and it works for them without breaking anything
> else. You reject the patch because it isn't really a good i18n solution, it
> only works for Klingon. You also think that Klingon is a silly thing to add
> support for, so you'll probably never add it in. However, for the people
> interested in writing Klingon (e.g. Hollywood screen writers and trek fan
> fiction writers), this is a good solution. In this case, you are preventing
> people from having seamless support for Klingon.
>
[Note. Instead of sendind this message to the Debian list, I going to send
it to this list only. Reuse the argument if you want.]
This is a really good argument in favour of LPPL! If someone adds support to
Klingon by modifying the LaTeX kernel, the resulting documents will have a
restricted distribution because they won't compile correctly in other
systems. This is an _actual_ restriction. But if instead a package with a
different name is created, the document will complain about a required but
missing package and you will be able to locate and get the package, and
typeset the document. Otherwise, you will be frustrated because you have a
'correct' document displaying nothing without any explanation. I think it's
important to note that LaTeX is an open system entirely written in TeX and
that the macros defined in the LaTeX kernel are *freely* redefinable by
means of packages (which usually is not posible in other programming
languages).
Javier
|
|
|