[XeTeX] Performance of ucharclasses

Zdenek Wagner zdenek.wagner at gmail.com
Wed Oct 26 00:09:44 CEST 2011


2011/10/25 Tobias Schoel <liesdiedatei at googlemail.com>:
>
>
> Am 25.10.2011 10:30, schrieb Keith J. Schultz:
>>
>> O.K. I will jump in here.
>>
>> Intellectual property rights are often a great big gray zone.
>> Maybe, it is time the author of the package speaks up himself
>> what is meant.
>
> That would help.
>
>>
>> Also, it does seem clear if the code being used or parts thereof are from
>> a
>> different party, who may or may not have rights which they will enforce.
>>
>> Furthermore, the author at least signals, s/he wants to keep control of
>> the code.
>> The use of "discouraged" indicates that the author or a third party may or
>> may not
>> go to court over the modified version. It is very clear that the author
>> does not want
>> modified versions being distributed. I admit that stronger legal terms
>> should have been
>> used.
>
> It's clear that he wants to keep control of the code of the  package called

LPPL is a good choice for such packages if the authors to make them free.

> ucharclasses . What is not clear at all, is, whether one might borrow freely
> from this package when writing a different package. This issue is not

No, you cannot unless you are granted explicit permission.

> covered exactly as this. It is allowed to use the package freely. A
> definition of "use" is missing. One might argue, that copying the text,
> changing it and calling it the foobar package, is use.
>
Usin means that you install it on your disk and put
\usepackage{ucharclasses} to your document.
>>
>> As the author has used this fuzzy legal terminology, it very hard to say
>> how a judge might
>> rule. It is like parking a car just because the car is not parked inside
>> of a no parking zone
>> you could still get a fine.
>
> Exactly: copyright laws still apply. So a restriction in a software license
> is usually nonsense: Everything that is forbidden by law need not be
> forbidden by license. Everything that is not forbidden by law can't be
> forbidden by license. (This might depend on the judicion, so it's probably
> wrong in the USA.)
>
The law does not allow you to use someone else's intellectual property
without permission. It is the license that grants you permissions. The
permissions can be granted for free or for a fee.


-- 
Zdeněk Wagner
http://hroch486.icpf.cas.cz/wagner/
http://icebearsoft.euweb.cz



More information about the XeTeX mailing list