Benedikt Ahrens schreef:
Completely right, you would have to modify the source code of each single
document.
You can compare it to C header files, I think.
For the soft links I don't know. The license doesn't say that another file may not have the same name as this file.
Anyway, this would not be a very easy-to-use solution.
For most distros soft links can be provided by the package, so the user
wouldn't even notice the change. But this could be a problem for file
systems/platforms that don't support soft links properly (like FAT, IIRC).
Anyway, I think AMS would consider soft links to be not in the spirit of
the license. It's best to clear that up with them to avoid any discussion.
Let's see the critical part again (excerpt from the license proposal):
"Modifications, and distribution of modified versions, are permitted, but only if
the resulting file is renamed."
In my opinion, telling the user how he should name the modified file on his
machine is way too restictive. Perhaps we could have it changed to:
"Modifications, and distribution of modified versions, are permitted. Modified files
must be distributed with a file name that is different from that of the original file
distributed by the AMS"
(sorry, this is bad english)
Yes, that seems more correct. Better yet: "... Distributed modified
files must have a file name that is different ...". You don't want to
give the impression that modified files must be distributed. ;)
("Modification, and" still makes me feel a bit uneasy, but that's not
the issue here.)
This assures that only the AMS files are distributed as being from AMS and
would also answer Karl's question about derivations of derivations.
If soft linking is not an option and we ignore inertia for a moment,
then it seems likely that there will be a parallel This-Is-Not-AMS-LaTeX
version of the package that will be used by all distros, because (or
just in case) they need to be able to make changes to the original version.
But we probably can't ignore inertia, because people can't and won't
change all their sources overnight. So in theory everybody (distros)
would be free to fix a bug and distribute the changed version, but in
practice that is not an option because of compatibility issues. I'm not
sure what to think about this.
By the way, do you mind if we move this to -dev?
_______________________________________________
gNewSense-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnewsense-dev
