Wed, 10 Jul 2002 22:37:47 +0200
> DWN make me read your RFC about LPPL.
> I had been involved in a translation effort to make LaTeX base classes
> accessible for French users. We then translated many *.dtx files.
> Of course we only translated comments and never changed source code,
> but they are merged in a single file.
> AFAICT this is forbidden by the LPPL, since we did not rename classes
> (which would not make sense).
it would not be allowed by LPPL if the resulting dtx file doesn't get a new
But it wouldn't be a problem to use a different name for the translated file
as there is no need for generating the code from that file. The .dtx files if
you look at them from the "english" text point of view (well or whatever
language they are written in) are documentation i.e. they are providing
"examples" illuminating the arguments set out in the text. It makes
absolutely sense (sometimes at least, if you have an audience :-) to translate
such documentation, but at the same time it makes sense to have such
translations side by side available and what better (and easier) way is there
than to use different names?
> If I am not clear, please let me know and I will explain again what the
> problem is.
please do, what exactly is the problem if you produce fr_classes.dtx, from
classes.dtx , say?