Re: Towards a new LPPL draft
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 01:47:46PM -0400, Brian Sniffen wrote:
> Requiring that the tarball for SniffenTeX be no smaller than the
> tarball for LaTeX, since if I distribute a fork I must distribute a
> pristine LaTeX *with* it, would be unacceptable. If I'm an
> English-language bigot who wishes to remove babel and all references
> to it, and distribute that fork, I must have that right to be
> DFSG-free.
Unfortunately, this is exactly the kind of requirement that DFSG#4 allows.
It is, I think, the main reason why some developers (including myself)
want to get rid of that clause.
Note that this size requirement is only on the _source_ tarball, you
will always be able to build a "binary" tarball that is smaller.
This links back to the discussion of what "build time" means, but
it's pretty clear to me that creating a Debian package is "building".
--
Richard Braakman
"I sense a disturbance in the force"
"As though millions of voices cried out, and ran apt-get."
(Anthony Towns about the Debian 3.0 release)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: