Re: LPPL3 violates DFSG9?
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 07:52:15PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
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.
Hmm, I don't understand the "even if not physically present" part.
> I'm merely using a tarball as an example here. Frank's protestations
> aside, it's clearly a packed format.
I think a .iso file would also be a "packed form".
The paragraph in question seems misstated. If I had to guess at its
intent, I would say that "packed form" actually refers to compression
and it's an attempt to prevent arguments of the form,
"I'm not distributing any LPPL'd files, I'm just distributing these
random-looking bits. I can't help it if people run 'gzip -d' on that
and get a file that looks just like yours."
If that's the intent, then I think it's unneeded and badly phrased. If
that's not the intent, then I have no idea what it means :-)
> (BTW, let me know if you don't want me to CC you -- I hate being CC'd on
> mailing list discussions because I get duplicate messages)
Not CCing is the default policy for Debian mailing lists.
"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 firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com