Re: Latex Project Public License
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> > My understanding is that in general it does not, due to the clause
> > "You may not modify in any way a file of The Program that bears a legal
> > notice forbidding modification of that file," but revtex's upstream version 4
> > can still be considered as free since none of its files bears such a notice.
>
> I believe that interpretation is correct; in the same vein, other
> licenses (the OPL, for example) have optional clauses that, when not
> invoked, pass the DFSG.
Yup, the consensus seems to be that unused clauses of a license don't
affect the freedom of the work. Note that use of such a license DOES
place a higher burden on the packager, as you now need to check each file
in a new version to see if the package has become non-free. With a
"purely free" license, you only need check that the license has not
changed.
--
Mark Rafn dagon@dagon.net <http://www.dagon.net/>
Reply to: