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

Re: Towards a new LPPL draft

On 23 Jul 2002, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> Do you think that it is non-free for a license to require *distributors*
> to always provide the option to use pristine source when running
> something?

Definitely non-free.  Distributors may be required to provide pristine
source and patches, but must be allowed to have the actual installed
runnables be the modified version.

"required to distribute source". Ok.

"required to distribute unchanged source". Ok, I think.  (there may 
be subtleties I hadn't thought of, and I don't see the benefit of this 
over just publishing a URL).

"prevented from distributing runnables based on modified source".  No way.

"required to distribute binaries (runnables) built from pristine source". 
No way.

> The main thing would be whether a user would have the option of removing
> the pristine files, as in the case of tinyLaTeX you mention.

That was my reason for the clarification.  As long as PDA tinyLaTeX can be
distributed with pristine source on another medium (like a CD), it's ok
(IMO).  The fact that the pristine source can't be used on the PDA is
irrelevant - it was distributed with it, as required.
Mark Rafn    dagon@dagon.net    <http://www.dagon.net/>  

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

Reply to: