Re: name changing clauses, again
MJ Ray <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> 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.
This one, and lots of other threads about the LPPL.
> 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.
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)