Re: LaTeX & DFSG

[Frank Mittelbach <frank.mittelbach@latex-project.org>]

Jeff Licquia writes:
 > > Well, as you see, this community has its own way of modifying
 > > programs. We have traditions that predate GPL, Linux and even C. We
 > > are quite happy with the way the things are.
 > 
 > I think this is the main issue.  You have a tradition for allowing
 > modification that is different from what we're used to.  The question is
 > whether this tradition meets the qualifications of DFSG 3 and 4.

nicely put, that is the core issue.

 > Rather than make reference to "patch files" and other things that may
 > mean different things to different people, it may be good to talk about
 > what constitutes a modifiable program.  Here's one description:
 > 
 >  - A program is modifiable if a user has the legal right to change the
 > program's behavior in an arbitrary way without excessive inconvenience
 > or requirements.

hope this is a description everybody can agree with (including that it
hopefully meets DSFG 3+4)

 > Now, the sticky word here is "excessive".  In one respect, LD_PRELOAD
 > can be used to change any program's behavior no matter the license, but
 > I think we'd agree that this would be an excessive requirement.
 > 
 > Taken at a "stupid level", your requirement for filename changes also
 > seems excessive.  At face value, the cascading change requirements
 > (change references in this other file, which is also a change requiring
 > rename, which means more references to the new file have to be changed,
 > etc.) would make it nearly impossible to practically make changes to
 > LaTeX.  Further, it's not clear whether further modifications beyond the
 > first set require yet more name changes, for reasons I've discussed
 > elsewhere.

I hope that i will be able to proof that successfully to you. I think we now
also all understand that the current LPPL license has a number of deficienies
which makes it difficult to understand if you are coming from a background not
rooted in the tradition of TeX/LaTeX.

by a) explaining this tradition better to you and b) (with your help) drafting
a different wording of LPPL I think we should be able to resolve this.

again I would urge everybody to have a look at my clarification questions in

 http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200207/msg00250.html

and answer my questions concerning the four blocks in there (perhaps adding
the above definition to block b)

thanks
frank


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org