Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)
Boris Veytsman <email@example.com> writes:
> I understand this opinion. Your assertion that DFSG-4 does not protect
> file names logically follows from it. The problem is, I do not share
> this opinion. This does not make neither of us a person with an
> unhealthy mind; however, there must be some way to resolve this in a
> normal way.
First, DFSG doesn't protect anything; what it does, is say that
certain kinds of "protection" by copyright licenses do not impact the
freeness of the software.
It allows that a license might require renaming of the work (or
alteration of version number) in order to achieve such protection,
without impacting freeness. But it does not say that any mechanism
whatsoever for achieving that "renaming of the work" is ok. For
example a license might say "You may modify this, but only if you
change the name. You must give clear indication of the changed name
in skywriting over Manhattan." That's not free, even though the
alleged purpose is merely to make the name change suitably public and
Now, you treat this is as if there are merely differing
interpretations of DFSG-4. But there are not. The only interpretors
of DFSG-4 are the Debian Project. Nobody else. We don't make any
kind of promise that if you meet the DFSG, we will distribute your
software; rather, we publish these guides, and then use them in making
determinations about what is free. But we make the determination.
DFSG is not a legal text, it's an internal guide for the Debian
We don't neet to convince you that we have the right interpretation of
DFSG-4. I'm sorry that you find it confusing, but I hope the present
discussion has helped to clarify it for you.