Re: Motivations; proposed alternative license (was Re: LaTeX Public Project License, Version 1.3 (DRAFT))
On Sun, 2002-07-14 at 12:05, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Jeff, it's not clear under your license how Debian could package a
> modified version. OUr binary packaging system (and the DFSG) do not
> really allow modifications to be separate from the original
> particularly for compiled works. I may be missing something obvious.
> Assuming that this license were adopted, how could Debian use it?
Like I said: I don't expect this license to be without problems; it was
a draft. The point was that it shouldn't be hard to come up with a
license that is free, yet satisfies the LaTeX Project's goals.
That is an oversight of the license snippet I posted, though. To
address your concern, perhaps we could split section 3 up something like
3. In addition, you are allowed to distribute your modifications to the
Program in source form created in accordance with section 2, with or
without fee, subject to the restrictions in section 1 and the following
a. All modifications must be distributed separately from the Program
itself. The original Program and your modifications may be distributed
in aggregate so long as the original Program, as you received it, is
b. All modifications must be accompanied with clear documentation
describing exactly what modifications have been made, and their effects
on the standard behavior of the Program.
3 1/2: In addition, you are allowed to distribute binaries based on
your modifications created in accordance with section 2, as long as you
also distribute the exact source used to create those binaries in
accordance with section 3.
There may be other, better ways to say the same thing.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org