Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 16:58, Walter Landry wrote: > > However, I'm not going to force this down the LaTeX community's > > throat. If they don't want to do it, they don't have to. I just > > think that it accomplishes their goals better than anything else, > > while preserving the freedom to modify. > > What about the other alternative, where files identify which standard > they adhere to themselves instead of relying on a canonical list?
Going from the top down seems more analogous to the actual trust model. For example, Sue has a package FOO that uses Bob's package BAR. Sue is the one that has decided that FOO will use BAR, not Bob. Therefore, it seems like Sue should decide what versions of BAR that FOO uses. As for whether the bottom up identification is DFSG free, I'm not sure. I have a feeling that it will either not work, or not be free. That is why I like the checksum approach. It doesn't have restrictions on modifications, except that you can't call it LaTeX anymore. As a side note, I believe the Linux kernel uses the bottom up approach to detect "tainted" kernels. It doesn't have any legal force, though. It certainly doesn't abort itself if it finds out that it is tainted. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
