Re: LPPL, take 2
tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> Branden Robinson <branden@debian.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!
I think tb's problem is with the "in any way" phrasing. How's this
for an alternative:
c. The Current Maintainer may have included an offering of technical
support for his work, labelled "Support Information". You must
remove any such offerings, though you may add your own. If there
is other information regarding support from or contact information
for the Current Maintainer, you may treat it under the
other terms of this License.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Reply to: