On Mon, Jul 15, 2002 at 10:15:21PM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote: > Will Newton writes: > > No amount of license changes will prevent site administrators making their > > own changes to their LaTeX installation, and I would hope major > > distributors > > if so then why bother to license anything at all? How do you propose to enforce a license that restricts people from modifying files on their own systems, and distributes only among a private group of individuals? > the problem is that prior to LPPL (which is now in use for a number of years) > many people were not even aware that they do something "wrong" to the community > and their local users. now most of them are (at least within the LaTeX > community) There are more methods than just forbiddance to achieve education. > > No, I do not believe this is a good > > argument for making a package unfree. > > it would certainly a bad reason to make a package unfree. my claim is that it > isn't! It appears that Debian's consensus is that forbidding the renaming of files is too large a stick to achieve your goal of notification of deviation from a standard. Requirements of notification of modification in original source code and in program diagnostic output are perfectly acceptable under the DFSG; badging or watermarking the generated document while forbidding the removal of same would not be. There may be other means of notifying the user that he's running a hot-rodded component; we'd be more than happy to work with you to think of some. -- G. Branden Robinson | If you make people think they're Debian GNU/Linux | thinking, they'll love you; but if email@example.com | you really make them think, they'll http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | hate you.
Description: PGP signature