Re: Concluding the debate (was Re: Towards a new LPPL draft)
Jeff Licquia <licquia@debian.org> writes:
> -----
> The requirement for modifications to LaTeX to be in files with different
> names from the original files, when combined with the ability for LaTeX
> to do filename mapping for file references, does not constitute a
> violation of the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
> -----
>
> Now, I want to hear objections to that statement. If there are none,
> then I will assert:
Whether there is an objection may depend on the wording. Someone
(Frank?) espoused a desire to make this restriction as weak as
possible while still safeguarding the goals of the Latex folks. I'd
like to see what that results in. Only package names? (e.g., 'Any
occurrence of "Foo" in filenames in package Foo must be replaced with
something other than "Foo", but which may include "Foo", such as
"NotFoo"'.) Only files intended to be called directly from a user
document? Only files listed in 'importantfiles.txt'? There are
several ways of approaching this requirement, and I'm curious which
one the Latex folks intend to use. For example, I'd personally be
more favorably inclined to the license if there's a requirement that
there be a list of files who's names must be changed.
But, of course, IANAL, and IANADD (Debian Developer).
--
Jeremy Hankins <nowan@nowan.org>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: