[XeTeX] Performance of ucharclasses
Tobias Schoel
liesdiedatei at googlemail.com
Sun Oct 23 16:18:09 CEST 2011
I'm German, so I have neither the linguistic nor the judicial
background. Alas, I can add my mustard (German Saying):
Discouraged is not the same as prohibited. So the license does not
prohibit redistributing it in a modified version. But in most countries
this doesn't matter, as copyright laws prohibit these actions.
Besides, I also wouldn't do, if it was allowed. Who knows, what methods
the author employs in order to enforce the “discouragement”? ;-)
ciao
Toscho
Am 23.10.2011 12:48, schrieb Vafa Khalighi:
> I can not comment on the difference between "discouraged" and
> "prohibited" since I am Persian not British but certainly if I am
> "discouraged from modifying a package", I feel that "I am prohibited
> from modifying that package".
>
> On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 9:36 PM, Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd)
> <P.Taylor at rhul.ac.uk <mailto:P.Taylor at rhul.ac.uk>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Vafa Khalighi wrote:
>
> Yes, firstly because it does not make the software free any more
> (not just free in price but also free in modification, etc) and
> secondly LPPL never discourage you from modifying the software.
>
>
> I don't think you are understanding my question, Vafa : I am
> not querying whether they are inconsistent in spirit -- which
> clearly they are -- but in terms of actual requirements. Since
> you are only "discouraged from" and not "prohibited from"
> making changes, I believe that a court of law would find that
> there is no actual inconsistency in practice.
>
>
> Philip Taylor
>
>
> ------------------------------__--------------------
> Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
> http://tug.org/mailman/__listinfo/xetex
> <http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
> http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
More information about the XeTeX
mailing list