[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: LaTeX Project Public License

David Carlisle writes:
> since you added a CC to a debian list,...

I didn't add debian-legal to the headers: that's where this discussion
started.  I added you, since I thought you would be interested.  

> ...I assume that you know of the following:

As a Debian developer and a charter subscriber to debian-legal I am
intimately familiar with the DFSG.

> 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.

The clause I suggested coupled with a requirement that it be included in
the license on every derivative is sufficient to prevent this.

> I don't really see how your suggested wording is that different from the
> current draft,...

My wording does not ask that someone ensure that someone else will never do

My wording also says that the files *must* be renamed.  Your wording ("Any
such changed files should be distributed...") could be construed as a
request, not a requirement.  'Should' is not a synonym for 'shall'.

> I am rather against rewording at this stage unless there really is a
> major problem.

I rather suspect that your attorney will want to make quite a few changes.
You *do* intend to have the license reviewed by an attorney, I hope?

> I do hope that Debian (in particular) do acknowledge that this meets the

That isn't up to me.  I just give my (sometimes unwelcome) opinion.

> It was part of the intention while phrasing the licence that those
> guidelines were met.

Oh, I think it probably does, if I either read the clause in contention as
advisory ("...should...") or squint a little and say "I think I know what
he really means by that".  I'm not sure that the license does what you want
it to do, though.
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI

Reply to: