Re: A few more LPPL concerns
On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 16:56, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> It is informative to see what the FSF says about the LPPL
> (from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html):
[very interesting analysis snipped]
> Note: These comments are based on version 1.2 (3 Sep 1999) of the
> LPPL.
Note that we are discussing a draft of the 1.3 LPPL, posted here:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200207/msg00007.html
> They seem to tolerate the filename changing requirement in the special
> case of Latex since it is so easy to circumvent. I believe not everybody
> on this list is yet convinced of that though.
>
> Solving http://bugs.debian.org/153257 (tetex-bin: License
> contradictions) that Richard Braakman filed somewhere at the beginning
> of this whole discussion is a pre-requirement for deciding whether or
> not Latex can be distributed as Free Software at all.
True. OTOH, DFSG-freeness of the LPPL is a necessary condition for the
freeness of LaTeX, even if it is not sufficient.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: