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

Re: name changing clauses, again

MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote:

> Frank =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=FCster?= <frank@debian.org>
>> 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.  

This one, and lots of other threads about the LPPL.

> 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
> at all.

Which can mean that nobody considers this to be a problem.

>> 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.

Agreed, but I'm dealing with licensors who are either completely
unavailable or unreachable, or not willing to understand the problem... 

> 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.

Yes, I guess that's the attitude I should also take myself in the cases
where there's no possibility to reach/convince upstream.  Except
dropping the file, of course, if the restriction is *not* ineffective.

Regards, Frank
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)

Reply to: