Re: name changing clauses, again
Frank =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=FCster?= <email@example.com>
> I tried to read the old discussions about the LPPL, [...]
I guess you're referring to things like "analysis of latest LPPL revision"
by Branden Robinson in June and September 2003, but you don't say. It's
rather difficult to discuss things without knowing what they are. Even
then, it seems like it wasn't totally consensual about the problem.
> MJ Ray said, without anyone contradicting that: [...]
I wouldn't read much into that. On my screen, no-one besides you replied
> So here the lesson seems to be that also filename change requirements
> are acceptable as long as they do not impose any "relevant"
> restrictions, with the question what's relevant depending on the
> individual case.
I strongly argue against including irrelevant junk in a licence, as it
can turn out to be lawyerbombs.
So, get clarification/removal if you can, but if the only problem in the
licence is a practically-ineffective restriction whose workaround is
noted in the copyright file, I'm not going to file a serious bug over it.
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct