Re: LPPL3 violates DFSG9?

[Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net>]

Scripsit Frank Mittelbach <frank.mittelbach@latex-project.org>

>  > 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,

May I suggest something like

  | If The Program is distributed in the form of one or more of
  | master files that by some unpacking method is used to generate ...

which may make it clearer that the clause is not speaking about
bundling the program with something entirely different.

> (except that with LaTeX run-time files aren't really binaries so that I
> perhaps unwisely used the word "unpacking" here

I think the cause of confusion was "in a packed form" which can be
construed as "within a packed form (as one among other pieces of
content).

> 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

It would be a good thing to do for the sake of other people than
Debian even if the debate should end with Debian rejecting the
license.

-- 
Henning Makholm                      "The compile-time type checker for this
                           language has proved to be a valuable filter which
                      traps a significant proportion of programming errors."


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