Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia

[Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu>]

Frank Mittelbach <frank.mittelbach@latex-project.org> wrote:
> Branden Robinson writes:
>  > On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 06:19:38PM +0100, David Carlisle wrote:
>  > > Unfortunately "seems to me" is almost the only kind of comment that we get,
>  > > it would be more helpful if anyone could give a more objective criterion
>  > > that shows how LPPL breaks some clause of the DFSG, however not this
>  > > example. 
<snip>
>  > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200207/msg00071.html
> 
> that's one of yours right?
> 
> it does discuss general stuff and not explicit points about the license draft
> or where there is explicit an explicit problem. ie it is another one of those
> examples of general type. and as far as the general stuff about freedom for
> ... etc goes it was answered very explicitly by David, wasn't it?

Please reread it.  The first and fourth points especially

  1) You are not allowed to impose further restrictions on modification
     apart from what this clause permits.

  4) In practice, Debian recognizes "a different name or version number"
     to refer *works*, not filenames.

This is the current argument.  There was an argument about the ".ins"
files, but you said that is no longer an issue.

The LPPL goes beyond what is allowed by DFSG #4.  If the LPPL just
said that you can't call the resulting program "latex", then it would
be fine for Debian.

Regards,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org