Re: LaTeX Project Public License

[David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>]

> 
> 

> ensure that the original names are never used.  This is impossible. 
> 

since you added a CC to a debian list, I assume that you know of the following:

 4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code The license may restrict
       source-code from being distributed in modified form _only_ if the
       license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source
       code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The
       license must explicitly permit distribution of software built
       from modified source code. The license may require derived works
       to carry a different name or version number from the original
       software.

The phrasing of that part of the LPPL is intended to be (and I believe
is) fully in accord with this clause of the DFSG, especially its last
sentence. There is no point in just ensuring that an `immediate'
derivative is renamed otherwise it becomes legal to just do two hops
and rename over the original. Someone really tried to do that to latex
given the original phrasing of the latex licence which just said
that derivative files must be given a different name.
I don't really see how your suggested wording is that different from
the current draft, and since the number of people we have already
contacted getting agreement to this draft is rather large, I am rather
against rewording at this stage unless there really is a major problem.

I do hope that Debian (in particular) do acknowledge that this meets the
DFSG. It was part of the intention while phrasing the licence that those
guidelines were met.

David