Re: Towards a new LPPL draft
Glenn Maynard writes:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 04:27:57PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> > It sounds like you might have to talk to Branden and maybe Henning as
> > well. I'm not sure about Mark Rafn and Glenn Maynard. Thomas
> > Bushnell, Sam Hartman, and Colin Watson seem to be with you. Those
> > seem to be all of the regular contributors to debian-legal. My
> > apologies if I've missed someone.
>
> I'm not a DD. For those interested in my opinion anyway: What if I want
> to modify Latex to remove the filename mapping? If the DFSG-freeness is
> dependent on that mechanism, then I can't remove it (for the best or worst
> of technical reasons) and have it remain DFSG-free. Having freeness
> dependent on a feature being present is strange.
>
> Jeff, I don't know how you could make the renaming requirement dependent
> on this; then you have to deal with the case that people might remove
> the feature. Having license conditions dependent on specific features
> seems like a bad idea.
>
> (Of course, it might be nearly impossible to remove that mechanism without
> completely breaking the entire system, but that doesn't change the point.)
but I think what changes the point is that the filename remapping feature is
something that is available in a system outside the domain of the software
LPPL applies to, eg LPPL applies to LaTex macros but the feature is in the
virtual machine running such macros, ie TeX. So there is no way to "remove it"
and anyway the license to be applicable could require it.
Again, LPPL is a license drafted to serve a particular domain, just like the
Artist license and many other do. As such it seems acceptable to me that it
puts restrictions on to what it may be applied to, and that is what Jeff was
saying: he wanted to make sure (and i would be quite happy to make sure as
well.)
frank
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: