Re: What your ballot should look like if you're in favor of releasing sarge
Andrew Suffield <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 09:32:37AM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
>> Andrew Suffield <email@example.com> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 08:52:25PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
>> >> Well, if that's a minor symptom, what about the exceptions made in the DFSG
>> >> in order to accomodate for the old BSD advertizing clause,
>> > I don't believe we have any.
>> >> and the TeX
>> >> license?
>> > What about it? I don't recall any issues with that.
>> DFSG clause 4:
>> | The license may require derived works to carry a different name or
>> | version number from the original software. (This is a compromise. The
>> | Debian group encourages all authors not to restrict any files, source
>> | or binary, from being modified.)
> I don't see the issue with this...
I don't know what you want to say with that, or what Josip exactly
wanted to point out with this example. I simply had the impression that
you wasn't aware of that clause.
At least I know that there have been discussions wether the LaTeX
Project Public License is DFSG-free, and the main point in that
discussion was the "change filename" requirement. I don't know whether
you call that "an issue".
Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie