Re: LaTeX & DFSG

[Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu>]

Jeff Licquia <licquia@debian.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 00:06, Walter Landry wrote:
> > But what if latex evolved to the point where there is a cascade of
> > dependencies?  Is Debian going to have to monitor what the LaTeX
> > people do, just to make sure that they don't make it too hard to
> > modify?  What if a third party modifies LaTeX and puts his work under
> > the LPPL.  Is Debian going to have to vet that person's work to make
> > sure that it isn't too hard to modify?
> 
> That's why we're having this whole discussion.  I want to see a
> procedure for modification be enshrined in the license (among other
> things).
> 
> We already have to vet upstream whenever they release new versions of
> software.  For example, the Python license changed after 1.5.2 to become
> incompatible with the GPL; we skipped Python 1.6 and 2.0 because of it,
> and only accepted 2.1 when the license changed again to become
> compatible with the GPL again.

The Python license changed, so, of course, we would have to review the
license.  We didn't have to review the thousands of lines of source
code.

> > The following quote about the FSF's judgement of the LPPL is
> > instructive:
> > 
> > Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org> wrote:
> > > They seem to tolerate the filename changing requirement in the special
> > > case of Latex since it is so easy to circumvent. I believe not everybody
> > > on this list is yet convinced of that though.
> > 
> > I don't think that Debian should be making a special exemption for the
> > LaTeX project.
> 
> We're not arguing for a special exemption; we're arguing for a new
> license.  If we get that, we won't need any exemptions.

I just want to make sure that we don't allow a license that can only
be applied to LaTeX.  When Thomas Bushnell writes:

tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote:
> I concur with the FSF's judgment, BTW--because of the existence of the
> filename mapping feature, the hurdle of renaming files (while
> exceedingly obnoxious) is not so high that it renders the package
> non-free.  

it seems like Thomas thinks that the LPPL is OK for LaTeX, but
probably not for anything else.  That troubles me.

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