Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)
On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 07:37:22PM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> really, what is behind all this aren't file names but works (plural), and each
> of such works is supposed not to claim itself as the original (to other
> related works) after it was modified, eg a font is a work and plain.tex is a
> work as well as tex.web.
Are Postfix and Exim claiming to be Sendmail, by including a /usr/sbin/sendmail
interface? No; it's just a filename used for compatibility, because
many programs expect it.
> > File renaming requirements are not DFSG-free. Neither DFSG 3 nor DFSG 4
> > permit them. Only a requirement to rename the *work* is permitted.
> ...with work not being defined, the word "file" being used etc etc. ...
The DFSG is a set of guidelines; not a set of laws, and not a license.
It doesn't precisely define every term used. Some people might not like
this, and would prefer to see a completely unambiguous, uninterpretable,
legalistic DFSG; but that's not what we have.
Branden's interpretation of the sentence in question ("The license may
require derived works to carry a different name or version number from
the original software.") is both the obvious one (IMO), and a practical
one: generally speaking, filename restrictions are much more of a burden
than restrictions on the actual name of a work, because filenames are
functional and the actual name of a work is not.