Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia
On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 10:34, Mark Rafn wrote:
> I'm with Walter here. It's not "obviously OK", though it's not obviously
> unfree either. If it's ONLY renaming of foo.c AND there aren't many files
> that depend on the name of foo.c, we would likely put up with it. If it's
> renaming foo.c, bar.c, lala.h, and Makefile, or if there are dozens of
> references in config scripts to foo.c it's a lot less free.
>
> I'd say the same of the fileutils example. If "ls" was reserved for
> original versions, I'd pass it. If dozens of files needed renaming, it
> would be a lot less clear.
Fair enough; I think that's close enough to the sentiment of my message
to not be concerned with the details.
The important question is, of course, whether you think the LPPL can be
reconciled to the DFSG given the LaTeX Project's stated goals.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: