Re: LPPL, take 2
Branden Robinson <email@example.com> writes:
> > c. In every file of the Derived Work you must ensure that any
> > addresses for the reporting of errors do not refer to the Current
> > Maintainer's addresses in any way.
> This is somewhat new ground for a DFSG-free license. Is it *really*
> that important? If so, I'd like to hear advocates of it explain why
> it's more free than, say, a prohibition against the creator of a Derived
> Work calling the Current Maintainer on the phone to ask for technical
This is sufficiently awful as to be unacceptible.
For example, suppose Debian takes the package, and modifies it. We
prune all the previous bug reporting addresses, and mention only
normal Debian addresses, including debian-devel. And then one of the
Current Maintainers subscribes to debian-devel.
It now becomes *Debian's* responsibility to deal. Eek!