I am about to release a new document class I developed myself. I am currently in disarray about what license can/should be used for such a project.
The "default" license used for LaTeX code seems to be the LPPL version 1.3c, but it only cares about file names used in derivative works and maintenance succession of the original work. But I would like to use some kind of copyleft license, which imposes the right to redistribute modified versions of the document class, to reuse code of these modified versions in other projects and to backport these changes into an original project. But I don't want to use a license which would require to mention and redistribute this document class (or a link to it) with every PDF produced with it because it would be ridiculous.
I have read the discussion about implications of the
classicthesis being licensed with GPL, as well as an answer and comments to this question and the detailed history of the controversy regarding LaTeX code licensing (Reflections on the history of the LATEX Project Public License (LPPL) — A software license for LATEX and more). What I have understood so far is:
- There are different opinions about whether an article (its source code and/or produced PDF) typesetted using a document class licensed under GPL must be also under GPL. It seems like the FAQ answer "In what cases is the output of a GPL program covered by the GPL too?" on the gnu.org suggests that it is, but I am not sure.
- It seems like the LGPL license if used for a document class would still require a mention of usage of this document class in each produced PDF, which would be ridiculous.
- The LPPL license seems to be the only appropriate license for my case, but it is not enough for me.
The question: Is there a ready-to-use set of extending clauses for the LPPL which would make it a copyleft license? Or is it a terra incognita and consequences of trying to extend it this way are yet unknown?