Re: LPPL3 violates DFSG9?
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 19:35, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> 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.
RMS wasn't going by the DFSG. Also, I don't think he's discussed the
matter with the FSF's attorneys yet.
> 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
I agree that the wording is not good
> > 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.
OK, how about the following:
As a special exception to the section titled CONDITIONS ON DISTRIBUTION
AND MODIFICATION ("Section 57"), you may modify the Program by
processing them with automated translation and compilation tools
("Tools") to generate derivative works ("Generated Files"), and
distribute these modifications. under the following conditions:
1. The Tools must copy all copyright notices in the Program into the
Processed Files.
2. The terms of this license (other than Section 57, paragraphs 5
through 8) are followed with respect to Generated Files.
BTW, you should number your sections.
> 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).
That's part of it. Frankly, the whole paragraph is rather incoherent,
especially the part in parens.
> Does that resolve that problem?
I'm still a bit confused about the nature of the problem, so, maybe.
> 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
Well, I think it is worth doing anyway -- unclear terms are never good
for a license, whether or not Debian likes it.
--
-Dave Turner
GPL Compliance Engineer
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: