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

Re: LPPL3 violates DFSG9?

David Turner writes:
 > 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.

hmmm, perhaps not, but Richard Stallman just recently asked me for a copy of
that draft and came back to me saying he sees no problems with it.

anyway ...
 > 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.+}

perhaps the wording is not really good, eg perhaps it should say

 > to be generated by some unpacking method from the distributed source files
   of The Program,

but the above paragraphs is the result of a suggestion by Richard Stallman to
me (some time ago) where he said

  Correctly labeling the generated run-time files with their license can
  and should be part of the conditions on use of the source files they
  are generated from.  This way, it applies regardless of how people
  change the generator scripts, or even if they write their own
  generator scripts or programs to convert or modify the source files.

so even if indeed the above paragraph in the current wording is not complient
with DFSG 9 it was not intended at all to be applicable to anything outside
The Program.

In fact the whole issue that let to this paragraph only did arise because we
tried to allow distribution of source without binary to save distributors
space (except that with LaTeX run-time files aren't really binaries so that I
perhaps unwisely used the word "unpacking" here cause that is what people
usually call the process of generating from some .dtx files some .sty files).

Does that resolve that problem?

to me that falls under minor corrections to be sorted out with Jeff et al
after there is finally a decision whether or not it is worth doing so in the
first place

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

Reply to: