Re: LPPL, take 2
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 10:53:30AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Branden Robinson <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
> > support.
> 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!
Simple. We kick him off the list with a "we're sorry, your
license prevents us from letting you subscribe."
In all seriousness, though, Thomas raises a good point. But I
think that Frank's recent e-mail deals with this issue already. You're
suffering from lag, my friend.