Re: Towards a new LPPL draft
Jeremy Hankins <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Walter Landry <email@example.com> writes:
> > Jeremy Hankins <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >> Yikes. I'd accept the former as free before the latter, personally.
> >> Giving users options is one thing, but option two seems to suggest
> >> that if Latex is forked for some reason we'll need to ferry around the
> >> original (from the date of the fork) version of latex whenever
> >> distributing the new version, forever. That's a far more onerous
> >> requirement than file renaming, imho.
> > This is specifically allowed by DFSG #4. The Q Public License uses
> > this feature as well. If you don't like it, feel free to call a
> > General Resolution to change it. Until then, it is still part of the
> > DFSG.
> It's quite similar, yes, but I can distribute a patch without the file
> it patches. If, for example, I have to include an entire pristine
> Latex installation with any fork, that's a significant burden indeed.
> Not that the LPPL could necessarily legally require such a thing, but
> if that's the intent of the Latex developers, I find it too onerous.
Actually, you can always distribute patches (at least in the US, and
only up to a point). You can even distribute patches to Oracle or
Photoshop. You just can't distribute the originals or a patched
binary without permission.
In any case, DFSG #4 specifically allows a requirement that source be
distributed as pristine + patches. Requiring source to accompany the
"binary" is an uncontroversial requirement under the DFSG.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org