"C.M. Connelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2. Restrictions on modification > > Presumably this one is the real sticking point. It seems to > me that the logic behind this restriction makes sense for > the core LaTeX packages -- the developers don't want to > receive complaints and bug reports about standard LaTeX > components that people might have modified and distributed > under the same name without making the modifications and > contacts clear. > > It's less clear to me that this restriction is a good idea > for contributed packages. It ensures that a package can > only be modified by its original author (or someone she > authorizes) which is both a good thing (for stability and > consistency) and a bad thing (packages can become moribund > when their authors move on).
I can't speak for Branden, but the first time I read the LPPL, I was nervous as well. The restrictions on modifications are a huge hassle. It doesn't clearly allow distribution of binaries built from modified source. Also, the restrictions on what kind of changes can be made to font definition (.fd) files are clearly not DFSG-free. I'm not sure about the restrictions on installation (.ins) files. If they contain anything more than copyright notices and license texts, then they are not DFSG-free. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
