Re: A few more LPPL concerns
On Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 10:20:04PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > I guess it really comes down to users' expectations, but this is not an area
> It is perfectly reasonable to want to help out users' expectations.
> However, an important freedom associated with free software is the
> freedom to do something unexpected, even radical.
I'm completely with you on that; what I meant was that when trying to
clearly answer the question "where should the name-change requirement
kick in?" that the LaTeX guys would probably be primarily considering
the expectations of the users in those situations.
So in my company, the four of us would all be well aware of the fact
that we were using a hacked LaTeX. In a University, even if the system
were only hacked in the installation and not further distributed. then
the LaTeX project would like to require them to name-change, as otherwise
a proportion of the users would almost certainly not be aware that they
were not using standard LaTeX.
As I pointed out, good practise alone would suggest that the University
didn't call their hacked version "LaTeX" in the latter case. But where
is the line to be drawn, if it is to be drawn at all?
Do we (the Debian "side" here) agree that if I can't modify the
installation of LaTeX on our server without a name change, that
makes the LaTeX license non-free?
Again, as I said before, I think that answering the above questions
clearly and unambiguously may throw some more light on some of the
other questions we've been trying to answer.
Nick Phillips -- email@example.com
Don't tell any big lies today. Small ones can be just as effective.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com