On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 11:11:52AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > [Cc:ed to debian-legal, as the detailed examination of licenses is more > on-topic for that list; d-l folks, feel free to drop the reference to > d-vote if further nitpicking is required ;)] [...] > On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:57:09PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: > > > some people expressed doubt about the claims i made regarding the actual > > contents of non-free. i said that very few packages were proprietary, that > > almost all were 'almost-free' (aka 'semi-free'). > > sgb modified files must be renamed and clearly identified. why is this in > > non-free? > > ISTR this license element came up for discussion in the context of the > LaTeX license; I /thought/ the conclusion was that requiring changes to > filenames in the source was ok, but that requiring changes to filenames > in the binary package was not. Debian-legal, please correct me if I'm > wrong. I don't believe that's correct. A requirement to change the filename at any stage was dropped from the latest draft of the LPPL that Frank Mittelbach posted to debian-legal (summer 2003). I personally[1] would maintain that a requirement to change a filename is an unacceptable restriction on one's freedom to modify the work. The LaTeX Project no longer appears to be interested in contending this issue, and I know of no other copyright holder of software packaged by the Debian Project who does. [1] other subscribers to -legal may feel differently -- G. Branden Robinson | Debian GNU/Linux | Ab abusu ad usum non valet branden@debian.org | consequentia. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature