LPPL again

[Denis Barbier <barbier@imacs.polytechnique.fr>]

Hi,

i am new on this list but i read articles about the LPPL (LaTeX Project
Public License).
I posted the message below to comp.text.tex and receive no answer.
Are there kind people here to comment my questions/assertions?

TIA

Denis

======================================================================
From: Denis Barbier <barbier@imacs.polytechnique.fr>
Subject: Distribution of packages (was Re: french package status)

Hi folks,

forgive my stupidity, i don't understand how a LaTeX distribution (say
teTex) does not violate the LPPL.

One of the problem is
-> Redistribution of unchanged files is allowed provided that all files
-> that make up the distribution of The Program are distributed.
-> In particular this means that The Program has to be distributed
-> including its documentation if documentation was part of the original
-> distribution.

Now, let's have a look at a recent texmf tree distributed with teTeX
teTeX-texmf-0.9-990517.tar.gz
prompt> find . -name manifest.txt
./doc/latex/base/manifest.txt
./doc/latex/mfnfss/manifest.txt
./doc/latex/tools/manifest.txt
./doc/latex/cyrillic/manifest.txt

1) It's explained in doc/latex/base/README.tetex that all files listed
   in manifest.txt can be retrieved from CTAN. Is it sufficient?
2) How to know if other packages (e.g. babel) are complete?
3) ./doc/latex/base/manifest.txt lists all source files of the LaTeX base 
   system. These files are not part of teTeX-texmf-0.9-990517.tar.gz
   but provided in another archive. Should teTeX be encumbered by 14Mb
   of compressed source files?
4) Some Linux distributions split teTeX and put the documentation into
   a separate package. This also violates the LPPL.

The license of C programs often distinguishes between distribution
under source and binary forms.  Could the LPPL be changed to ease
redistribution of pre-installed packages?

Thanx for reading.

Denis