On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 20:54:30 +0200 Frank Küster wrote: > Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it> wrote: [...] > > It really should be copied into debian/copyright files, as mandated by > > Debian Policy. > > Yes, and we should switch the copyright file from our own invented > format to the consensus machine-readable format - we create it > automatically, anyway. OK, we seem to agree here. And I understand it's a non-trivial task: I hope it can be done, sooner or later... > > > Apart from this, I cannot fully understand your objection, anyway. > > Do you mean that the LPPL has a definition of source that does not > > allow changing its form? > > If you want to discuss specific aspects of the LPPL, I think you'd > better > > - read it carefully first Fair enough. > > - read the (quite lengthy) discussions on debian-legal about it I am a debian-legal regular since 2004; however it seems that most discussions about the drafting of LPPL v1.3 were held before I began following the list. The only one I did quickly read (without actively taking part) starts here: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg00079.html I should really manage to find the time to take a look at the previous discussions... :-( > > - discuss it with people who are interested in that, e.g. on > debian-legal. Once again, fair enough. > > Myself, I just take it for granted that a license which has been > drafted together by the LaTeX team and some debian-legal regulars, and > been reviewed and finally approved on that list, is DFSG-free. And I > have no interest in discussing this; we have indeed more severe > licensing problems in texlive; the woeful copyright file is just a > symptom of that. I can understand your point of view. > > >> Of course, if you apply the same patch, including versin information, to > >> both files and don't recreate the generated file, no one can prove that > >> you didn't abide by the wording of the license, and for sure you did > >> follow the spirit. > > > > What if my preferred form for making modifications to foilhtml.sty is > > *really* the .sty format, rather than its original source? > > I mean, what if I *honestly* prefer modifying the .sty file directly? > > That sounds to me a bit like the "What if I prefer to modify the > Postscript file directly?" argument which has for sure been brought up > when people recommended the GPL, a source-aware license, for > documentation. Exactly, and the answer is: the GNU GPL *allows* you to start modifying the Postscript code directly and treat it as source. Because it actually *becomes* source, as soon as you start modifying it directly: it's the preferred form for making further modifications to your modified version of the document! -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/index.html#nanodocs The nano-document series is here! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpoh7drpBAP1.pgp
Description: PGP signature