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

Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia

On Sat, Jul 20, 2002 at 09:49:15PM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
>  > >  - to fork you have to rename every package under LPPL
>  > 
>  > > all of them wrong (and explained over and over again by now)
>  > 
>  > It has been *asserted* over and over again that this is wrong, but
>  > that assertation does not seem to be consistent with the actual
>  > license text we're discussing. It says that each *file* must be
>  > renamed if it is changed, and since each package is a file that has
>  > the package name as its file name, it logically follows that one would
>  > have to rename all packages.
>  > 
>  > Have I overlooked something in the license?
> no. *each* file that you change must be renamed, but where is the problem
> here? I think it has also been demonstrated that is neither excessive nor in
> conflict with DSFG 3+4

As long as you offer DFSG-free options, you can offer as many other
options as you want.  You can say: "you can distribute modified files if
1: you rename the program to something other than 'Latex', 2: you rename
all modified files, *or* 3: you swear loyalty to Frank Mittelbach."
#1 is DFSG-free.  #2 (and presumably #3) is not, but we don't have to
choose them.

David Carlisle has said that, with some exceptions, option #1 is okay
with him [1], and I'm assuming you two are in agreement.  That one's
DFSG-free.  (I can't say if the exceptions, regarding the latex search
path, are.)

However, option #1 isn't in the license.  This is what Henning was
asking about.

[1] Message-Id: <200207181303.OAA07151@penguin.nag.co.uk>

Glenn Maynard

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

Reply to: