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

Re: LPPL3 violates DFSG9?

On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 19:29, David Turner wrote:
> I've read most of the archives, but couldn't find any comments on what I
> think is the biggest misfeature of the LPPL3.  Keep in mind that I'm not
> speaking for the FSF here, just for me.  The FSF hasn't made any
> decisions yet.
> Added in LPPL3:
> {+If The Program is distributed in a packed form with a number of files
> to be generated by some unpacking method from the distributed files,
> then these derived files are logically (even if not physically
> present) part of The Program and are covered by this license
> independently of the method of their generation.+}
> So, if article.whatever is distributed in a tarball (packed form) with
> some other software (a number of files to be generated by some unpacking
> method (untar) from the distributed files (tarball)), then this other
> software is logically part of The Program and is covered by the
> LPPL....   
> The DFSG says:
> 9.
> License Must Not Contaminate Other Software
> The license must not place restrictions on other software that is
> distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license
> must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium
> must be free software.

The DFSG does not enshrine tar as the "standard" archive format; if the
tarball contains other archives which expand to other files, then I
don't see a problem with it "contaminating other software" per se.

Plus, you're talking about other files that are most definitely part of
LaTeX that are generated here.  It would be different if it required
that gcc be installed in /usr/bin, for example.

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

Reply to: