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

Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)



On Sun, Apr 06, 2003 at 01:55:44PM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> well, I tried to give a rewrite in the other post (which can surely be
> improved) --- but it is certainly something that is passed through the program
> to reach the user, but this is also true for, say, GPL 2c.

Just FYI, but the wording of GPL 2c has come under critique on this
mailing list before.  While it is true that the GNU GPL has many fans on
this list, and that people on this list frequently recommend it because
it is well-understood, the GPL is not regarded with unthinking
adulation.

Therefore, I would not invest too much hope that likening a license to
the GPL is going to, in and of itself, "grease the skids" for license's
interpretation as DFSG-free by this mailing list.

To see what I'm talking about, you will unfortunately have to wade
through a *gigantic* thread about the license of a piece software called
PHPNuke.

Nevertheless, here's a message picked out of that thread at random:

  http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200303/msg00181.html

-- 
G. Branden Robinson                |    Religion is regarded by the common
Debian GNU/Linux                   |    people as true, by the wise as
branden@debian.org                 |    false, and by the rulers as useful.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |    -- Lucius Annaeus Seneca

Attachment: pgpBrFjFOACow.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: