Re: Encoding the name in the file contents (was Re: Towards a new LPPL draft)
> Or, I accept rather that sometimes a naming restriction is compatible,
>and sometimes its not.
>If the situation allows for the renaming of only a few things--and
>only user commands, really--then I don't mind *that* much. If the
>situation requires the renaming of a jillion things, then I mind.
I don't think that position is sustainable.
If you decide that it is OK for package A to have a renaming rule, then
that decision should hold, even if the authors of a jillion other packages
choose the same distribution option for their packages.
That is the situuation we are in here. LPPL has proved popular.There are
hundreds (jillions) of independently distributed packages using the
same licence. If you decide it is OK for the first of these to have a
renaming rule you can't change your mind just because the licence proves
popular. If you decide that it is not OK for the first package to have a
renaming rule you have to find a very creative way of interpreting the
DFSG to back up that decision since the guidelines explictly allow this
under certain circimstances.
This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet
delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further
information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call
Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com