Re: Towards a new LPPL draft
Jeff Licquia <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 15:50, Walter Landry wrote:
> > If file renaming is a real axiom, then I don't think that Debian and
> > the LaTeX Project can come to an agreement. DFSG #4 has never been
> > interpreted as allowing that kind of restriction, and I don't see why
> > Debian should make an exception for LaTeX.
> I disagree. DFSG 4 was, as I understand, drafted with explicit
> reference to the situation with TeX, which is similar in many ways.
TeX is not similar at all (Why do people keep bringing this up?). The
only thing you have to do is not call it TeX. You can then modify
files in place all you want.
Also, someone else claimed that DFSG 4 was written the way it was in
order to get qmail into main, not TeX. I wouldn't know.
> At any rate, I am satisfied that the file name issue is not a problem
> with the DFSG because of the file redirect thing that is also a part of
> LaTeX. I intend to pursue getting some language into the license to
> reference that specifically.
> Is there anyone else who objects? Walter, will you yield if you stand
> alone on this matter?
It sounds like you might have to talk to Branden and maybe Henning as
well. I'm not sure about Mark Rafn and Glenn Maynard. Thomas
Bushnell, Sam Hartman, and Colin Watson seem to be with you. Those
seem to be all of the regular contributors to debian-legal. My
apologies if I've missed someone.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org