> 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