Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia
On Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 02:09:46AM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> on the other hand, no (usable) suggestions so far were put up on how to solve
> that exchangibility feature of LaTeX (not the nonLaTeX startinf from a kernel
> fork) otherwise. Branden tried but he thought of LaTeX being a monolith which
> would allow to test for "standard" conformance --- but as it isn't (remember
> any derived work under a new name might extend "LaTeX" as seen by the users),
> this approach is unworkable.
Part of their point, I believe, is that you're trying to use copyrights
to accomplish something that you need to use a trademark for. (IANAL,
either.)
Even if trademarks don't work for you here, copyrights remain inappropriate
for this. Even if you have some code that tries to prevent symlink tricks,
as you seem to have suggested in your "stolen flag" message, I can remove
that code (just another modification), or sidestep it with something it
doesn't know about, like a menu item label.
(Again, we're not suggesting that we actually want to do this; just that
the renaming requirements *can* be sidestepped, making them useless.)
> i'm certainly aware that we interpret #4 in a way which is at least uncommon,
> though that doesn't necessarily makes it wrong.
Other interpretations may be interesting, but it's ultimately Debian's
interpretation that determines whether it's DFSG-free, not yours (or
mine).
> I would certainly be glad to hear other opinions on the interpretation that i
> put forward in the previous mail
I'm interested in yours. If renaming requirements are clearly unenforcable,
why keep them around?
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: