{"id":"LatexProjectPublicLicenseVersion13c","title":"LaTeX Project Public License, Version 1.3c","reviewed_on":"2026-09-15","reviewer":"Giray Havur","text_source":"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/spdx/license-list-data/main/text/LPPL-1.3c.txt","text_retrieved":true,"verdict":"corrected","summary":"The LaTeX Project Public License lets anyone modify the Work and distribute the Derived Work, provided every component carries a change notice, replacement components identify themselves as modified, and the unmodified Work stays obtainable. The record prohibited derivative works outright, which reverses clauses 5 and 6. Those prohibitions were replaced by the permissions and duties the text sets, and the clause 10 right to relicense a Derived Work was added.","findings":[{"rubric":3,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:prohibition","description":"Clause 5 states: \"If you are not the Current Maintainer of the Work, you may modify your copy of the Work, thus creating a Derived Work\", and clause 6 then sets out how a Derived Work may be distributed. The record prohibited odrl:derive and cc:DerivativeWorks, so a compatibility check treated every LaTeX package fork as forbidden. Removed both and added the permissions with the duties of clause 6.","action":"applied","change":"# removed the odrl:derive and cc:DerivativeWorks prohibitions; added\nodrl:permission [ a odrl:Permission ;\n        odrl:action odrl:derive ;\n        odrl:duty [ a odrl:Duty ;\n                odrl:action cc:SourceCode ],\n            [ a odrl:Duty ;\n                odrl:action dalicc:modificationNotice ] ],\n    [ a odrl:Permission ;\n        odrl:action cc:DerivativeWorks ],\n    [ a odrl:Permission ;\n        odrl:action dalicc:ModifiedWorks ] ;\n"},{"rubric":3,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:permission","description":"Clause 10(a) states: \"A Derived Work may be distributed under a different license provided that license itself honors the conditions listed in Clause 6 above\". That is dalicc:ChangeLicense with a dalicc:compliantLicense duty. Added.","action":"applied","change":"odrl:permission [ a odrl:Permission ;\n        odrl:action dalicc:ChangeLicense ;\n        odrl:duty [ a odrl:Duty ;\n                odrl:action dalicc:compliantLicense ] ] ;\n"},{"rubric":1,"severity":"minor","field":"spdx:licenseId","description":"Added LPPL-1.3c and the missing dct:source. Verified rather than assumed: cc:legalcode already points at the Open Source Initiative page that the SPDX entry lists under seeAlso, and the fetched text is version 1.3c.","action":"applied","change":"spdx:licenseId \"LPPL-1.3c\" ;\ndct:source osl:LPPL-1.3c ;\n"},{"rubric":5,"severity":"major","field":"odrl:duty","description":"Clause 6(a) requires a replacement component to \"clearly and unambiguously identify itself as a modified version of this component to the user when used interactively\". That is dalicc:rename plus a runtime identification the vocabulary cannot express. The rename half could be added; it is proposed because clause 6(a) is about runtime identification rather than the file name.","action":"proposed","change":"# add to the odrl:modify and odrl:derive duties\nodrl:duty [ a odrl:Duty ;\n        odrl:action dalicc:rename ] ;\n"},{"rubric":4,"severity":"minor","field":"odrl:prohibition","description":"cc:ShareAlike is prohibited although clause 10(a) allows a different license and nothing forbids using this one. dalicc:promote is prohibited although the license has no trademark clause; clause 6(c) is about not implying that the original authors provide support.","action":"proposed","change":"# remove both prohibitions\n"},{"rubric":8,"severity":"gap","field":"vocabulary","description":"The Current Maintainer construction, which gives one party rights that everyone else lacks (clause 4 versus clauses 5 to 7), cannot be expressed: the model has one assignee. Proposed term: dalicc:maintainerRole. Clause 6(a) runtime identification is a second gap.","action":"none"},{"rubric":10,"severity":"minor","field":"record","description":"Standard-license addition of 2026-09-15, decision 9 and 10: the record was corrected against its new siblings and versioned. Library convention 10: the disclaimer paragraph held the liability sentence, which begins 'IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING WILL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER ... BE LIABLE'.","action":"applied"},{"rubric":4,"severity":"minor","field":"odrl:prohibition","description":"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.","action":"applied","change":"# removed\nodrl:prohibition [ a odrl:Prohibition ;\n        odrl:action dalicc:promote ] ;\n"}],"family":"Other OSI approved licenses (corporate, academic, weak copyleft)","port_of":null,"variant_kind":null,"notes":"A role-based license. The maintainer and non-maintainer paths differ substantially and the record can only show one of them."}