Re: LaTeX & DFSG
On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 00:06, Walter Landry wrote:
> But what if latex evolved to the point where there is a cascade of
> dependencies? Is Debian going to have to monitor what the LaTeX
> people do, just to make sure that they don't make it too hard to
> modify? What if a third party modifies LaTeX and puts his work under
> the LPPL. Is Debian going to have to vet that person's work to make
> sure that it isn't too hard to modify?
That's why we're having this whole discussion. I want to see a
procedure for modification be enshrined in the license (among other
things).
We already have to vet upstream whenever they release new versions of
software. For example, the Python license changed after 1.5.2 to become
incompatible with the GPL; we skipped Python 1.6 and 2.0 because of it,
and only accepted 2.1 when the license changed again to become
compatible with the GPL again.
> The following quote about the FSF's judgement of the LPPL is
> instructive:
>
> Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I don't think that Debian should be making a special exemption for the
> LaTeX project.
We're not arguing for a special exemption; we're arguing for a new
license. If we get that, we won't need any exemptions.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: