Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)
Glenn Maynard writes:
> 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.
I never said that a license like LPPL or a what I think the license on TeX is
are suitable for everything, just like I don't think GPL or Artistic is.
> > > 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.
that is all fine and okay, but it also means that Branden's interpretation is
not necessarily the only one possible _within Debian_ and the whole purpose of
some of these discussions was to find out a common "Debian position" given a
the problem with Don's work is, that you have to make assumptions or raise
opinions on what he means. but assuming he clarifies or you pick an
interpretation it then needs a discussion on whether it fits the not
completely unambiguous, interpretable, non-legalistic DFSG. right?