[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#143063 acknowledged by developer (Bug#143063: fixed in mmix 1:0.0.20020615-3)

On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 11:33:51AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Peter S Galbraith <GalbraithP@dfo-mpo.gc.ca> writes:
> > It has been argued (during the LaTeX license debate) that "the license
> > may require derived works to carry a different name" refers to the
> > software or package name, and not a functional item such as a source
> > code filename (which makes modification much more difficult).
> Not quite right.  If only a source code filename were implicated, that
> would not be a problem.  It's restrictions on what gets *installed*
> that is the problem.

As someone else explained (check the bug log for who; sorry, I don't
remember): the key piece is that there is no permission in the license
for modified code to be DISTRIBUTED.  That's where the problem appears
to actually lie.



      Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London
              website: http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jdg/
   Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see: http://people.debian.org/~jdg/
     Visit http://www.thehungersite.com/ to help feed the hungry

Reply to: