von Gast » Mo 14. Sep 2015, 12:00
Ich bin kein Anwalt und habe von daher natürlich keine professionell untermauerte Meinung, meine Lesefähigkeit (inwieweit die bei juristischen Texten allerdings ausreichend ist, sei dahingestellt) sagt mir allerdings, das es eigentlich nicht problematisch sein sollte.
Die Latin-Modern-Schrift steht unter der GUST Font License (
https://www.tug.org/fonts/licenses/GUST-FONT-LICENSE.txt), diese stimmt weitgehend mit der LPPL 1.3c oder später (
https://latex-project.org/lppl/lppl-1-3c.html) überein.
Die LPPL regelt aber nur die Änderung und Verbreitung des Werkes, eine Nutzung des Werkes wird also ausdrücklich nicht eingeschränkt (siehe das Zitat im Zitat weiter unten, das ist Punkt 1 der
Conditions on Distribution and Modification).
Siehe auch
Latin Modern Roman Unslanted licensing [closed] und nocheinmal sehr explizt in
Is a PDF output from a LaTeX document, a “derived work” from the LPPL standard packages?:
LPPL is only covering the WORK itself, e.g., the package that is under LPPL and the distribution and modification of the WORK but not the "use" of the WORK.
It explicitly states:
Activities other than distribution and/or modification of the Work are not covered by this license; they are outside its scope. In particular, the act of running the Work is not restricted and no requirements are made concerning any offers of support for the Work.
So running the WORK, i.e., in the LaTeX world producing a document with it is not of concern for LPPL and the output is not under any license but under whatever license you would put that output.
Es gibt aber, wie das immer so ist in der Jurisprudenz, eine
etwas vorsichtigere (nicht unbedingt dissenting) Meinung von Keks Dose
In reply to Frank Mittelbach's answer above and comment below: One could argue, that the sentence »running the Work...« says nothing about the output produced by »running the WORK«. If one is allowed to run a software it may not be included that one is free to use the result.
It would be more clear, if clause 1 of the conditions of the LPPL stated that the results produced neither are derived works nor in the scope of the licence.
From my (German) way of interpreting this licence it seems not impossible to construct an argument that the result of the software were derived work, although running the software is free. A special case is a PDF containing the text of the WORK.
I would not follow this argument, but if our OP resides in the USA, we have to concede that a lawsuite SCO ./. rest of the world (e.g. see here) was possible there. We can not exclude it for all countries of the world.
Ich bin kein Anwalt und habe von daher natürlich keine professionell untermauerte Meinung, meine Lesefähigkeit (inwieweit die bei juristischen Texten allerdings ausreichend ist, sei dahingestellt) sagt mir allerdings, das es eigentlich nicht problematisch sein sollte.
Die Latin-Modern-Schrift steht unter der GUST Font License ([url=https://www.tug.org/fonts/licenses/GUST-FONT-LICENSE.txt]https://www.tug.org/fonts/licenses/GUST-FONT-LICENSE.txt[/url]), diese stimmt weitgehend mit der LPPL 1.3c oder später ([url=https://latex-project.org/lppl/lppl-1-3c.html]https://latex-project.org/lppl/lppl-1-3c.html[/url]) überein.
Die LPPL regelt aber nur die Änderung und Verbreitung des Werkes, eine Nutzung des Werkes wird also ausdrücklich nicht eingeschränkt (siehe das Zitat im Zitat weiter unten, das ist Punkt 1 der [i]Conditions on Distribution and Modification[/i]).
Siehe auch [url=http://tex.stackexchange.com/a/102941/35864]Latin Modern Roman Unslanted licensing [closed][/url] und nocheinmal sehr explizt in [url=http://tex.stackexchange.com/a/82719/35864]Is a PDF output from a LaTeX document, a “derived work” from the LPPL standard packages?[/url]:
[quote]LPPL is only covering the WORK itself, e.g., the package that is under LPPL and the distribution and modification of the WORK but not the "use" of the WORK.
It explicitly states:
[quote]Activities other than distribution and/or modification of the Work are not covered by this license; they are outside its scope. In particular, the act of running the Work is not restricted and no requirements are made concerning any offers of support for the Work.[/quote]
So running the WORK, i.e., in the LaTeX world producing a document with it is not of concern for LPPL and the output is not under any license but under whatever license you would put that output.[/quote]
Es gibt aber, wie das immer so ist in der Jurisprudenz, eine [url=http://tex.stackexchange.com/a/82717/35864]etwas vorsichtigere (nicht unbedingt dissenting) Meinung[/url] von Keks Dose
[quote]In reply to Frank Mittelbach's answer above and comment below: One could argue, that the sentence »running the Work...« says nothing about the output produced by »running the WORK«. If one is allowed to run a software it may not be included that one is free to use the result.
It would be more clear, if clause 1 of the conditions of the LPPL stated that the results produced neither are derived works nor in the scope of the licence.
From my (German) way of interpreting this licence it seems not impossible to construct an argument that the result of the software were derived work, although running the software is free. A special case is a PDF containing the text of the WORK.
I would not follow this argument, but if our OP resides in the USA, we have to concede that a lawsuite SCO ./. rest of the world (e.g. see here) was possible there. We can not exclude it for all countries of the world.[/quote]