LaTeX Project Public License, Version 1.3a

info Rubric 1 spdx:licenseId applied

File name, identifier, SPDX identifier and IRI agree. The record carries dalicc:variantKind "version" and dalicc:licenseVersion "1.3a", and cc:legalcode points at the text on the LaTeX project's own site because the Open Source Initiative lists only 1.3c.

info Rubric 2 odrl:target applied

One odrl:AssetCollection of dct:type dalicc:CreativeWork and dcmitype:Software, the same as the 1.1 record. The licence governs the components of a work that is compiled by a Base Interpreter, so both types apply.

major Rubric 3 odrl:permission applied

Clause 2 reads: "You may distribute a complete, unmodified copy of the Work as you received it." Clause 5 reads: "If you are not the Current Maintainer of the Work, you may modify your copy of the Work, thus creating a Derived Work based on the Work, and compile this Derived Work, thus creating a Compiled Work based on the Derived Work." Clause 6 then sets the conditions on distributing a Derived Work. That is odrl:reproduce, odrl:distribute, odrl:display, odrl:present, odrl:modify, odrl:derive, cc:DerivativeWorks and dalicc:ModifiedWorks. Clause 1 says "the act of running the Work is not restricted and no requirements are made concerning any offers of support for the Work", so the licence places no field-of-use or price limit and cc:CommercialUse and dalicc:chargeDistributionFee stand.

major Rubric 3 odrl:permission applied

Clause 10(a) reads: "A Derived Work may be distributed under a different license provided that license itself honors the conditions listed in Clause 6 above, in regard to the Work, though it does not have to honor the rest of the conditions in this license." That is dalicc:ChangeLicense with a dalicc:compliantLicense duty, reciprocity shape 3, exactly as LatexProjectPublicLicenseVersion13c models the same clause.

major Rubric 5 odrl:duty applied

The conditions of clause 6 are the duties on odrl:modify and odrl:derive. Clause 6(b): "Every component of the Derived Work contains prominent notices detailing the nature of the changes to that component, or a prominent reference to another file that is distributed as part of the Derived Work and that contains a complete and accurate log of the changes." is dalicc:modificationNotice. Clause 6(d): "You distribute at least one of the following with the Derived Work", either a complete unmodified copy of the Work or information sufficient to obtain one, is dalicc:originalVersionOffer, which names the clause more exactly than the cc:SourceCode duty the 1.3c record uses for it. Clause 7: "you may distribute a Compiled Work generated from a Derived Work, as long as the Derived Work is distributed to all recipients of the Compiled Work" is cc:SourceCode, because a Compiled Work may not travel without the Derived Work it came from. cc:Notice hangs on odrl:distribute.

minor Rubric 5 odrl:duty applied

No cc:Attribution duty is written. Version 1.1 asked you to "acknowledge the authorship and name of the original file"; version 1.3a dropped that condition and replaced it with the runtime identification of clause 6(a): "the replacement component of this Derived Work clearly and unambiguously identifies itself as a modified version of this component to the user when used interactively with that Base Interpreter". dalicc:rename does not fit it either, which is what the review record of the 1.3c version says of the same clause, so clause 6(a) is a gap rather than a duty. The record still satisfies family rule 6 through cc:Notice.

minor Rubric 4 odrl:prohibition applied

dalicc:addLimitation is prohibited, following LatexProjectPublicLicenseVersion13c. The support for it in this text is clause 9, "Distribution of the Work or any Derived Work in an alternative format ... does not relax or nullify any sections of this license as they pertain to the results of applying that process", and the rule in clause 6 that only the Current Maintainer may add a statement of exemption to a component. Clause 10(a) does let a Derived Work go under a stricter licence, so long as it honours clause 6, and a reader who weighs that clause more heavily would drop the prohibition. The question is the same on the 1.3c record and is left as it stands there.

minor Rubric 4 odrl:prohibition applied

dalicc:promote is prohibited on the strength of clause 6(c): "No information in the Derived Work implies that any persons, including (but not limited to) the authors of the original version of the Work, provide any support unless those persons have stated explicitly that they do provide such support for the Derived Work." That is an implied-endorsement bar rather than a trademark clause, and the review record of the 1.3c version proposes dropping the prohibition for that reason. It is kept so that the LaTeX records agree with each other and with the rest of the library, and the sentence is quoted so a reader can judge.

major Rubric 4 odrl:prohibition applied

cc:ShareAlike is not prohibited. The 1.3c record carries that prohibition and its own review record proposes removing it; the 1.3a text states no share-alike condition and forbids none, so the statement is not repeated here.

minor Rubric 6 dalicc:WarrantyDisclaimer applied

The NO WARRANTY section holds two paragraphs and they go into two properties, which is family rule 10. The MAINTENANCE OF THE WORK section is quoted into dalicc:additionalClauses, not into dalicc:WarrantyOrLiabilityAcceptance, where the 1.3c record keeps it: that property is for a clause under which a licensee takes a warranty on, and the maintenance section is neither a warranty nor a liability clause.

info Rubric 7 cc:jurisdiction applied

The text names no legal system, so cc:jurisdiction is dalicc:worldwide, and it sets no term, so dalicc:validityType is dalicc:perpetual. There is no termination clause and dalicc:terminatesOnBreach is not written. The example notice offers "either version 1.3 of this license or (at your option) any later version", but that is an author's notice rather than a clause, so dalicc:orLaterVersionOption is not written.

gap Rubric 8 dalicc:additionalClauses none

Three clauses no term can express, all quoted. The Current Maintainer role gives one party rights that no other licensee has (clause 4 against clauses 5 to 7) and the model has one assignee; the review record of the 1.3c version proposes dalicc:maintainerRole for it, and this record repeats the proposal. Clause 6(a) asks a replacement component to identify itself as modified at runtime, which is neither dalicc:rename nor dalicc:modificationNotice; proposed term: dalicc:runtimeIdentification. The maintenance section, with its six-month unmaintained test and its three-month announcement, is a procedure rather than a duty.

info Rubric 9 record none

The consistency check of app.services.composer against the axioms of licensedata/dependencygraph/dg_default.ttl returned no conflicts.

info Rubric 10 record none

The nearest sibling is LatexProjectPublicLicenseVersion13c, which the SPDX list calls LPPL-1.3c. The two texts are nearly the same document. This record differs from that one in four things: no cc:ShareAlike prohibition, dalicc:originalVersionOffer beside cc:SourceCode on odrl:modify and odrl:derive, dalicc:CreativeWork beside dcmitype:Software on the target, and the maintenance section in dalicc:additionalClauses. It differs from the 1.1 record in having cc:SourceCode and no cc:Attribution and no dalicc:rename, because version 1.3 replaced the file-name rule with the runtime identification of clause 6(a).

minor Rubric 4 odrl:prohibition applied

dalicc:promote was prohibited and no sentence of this text supports it. The statement was the library's reading of a legal default, that a copyright licence which says nothing about endorsement grants no right to it, and it sat in 519 of 581 records as a house convention. That reading is now an adopted dalicc:DefaultRule of the core dependency graph, which supplies it to every licence that is silent about the action, so a compatibility check reaches the same answer and the record states only what the text states. Removed on 2026-09-23; see section 13 of docs/LICENSE_REVIEW.md.