On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 10:27:55AM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote: > However, I agree with David Carlisle, that this discussion is > moot. The present LPPL conforms to the present DFSG.
"Present" meaning the one currently in force, or "present" meaning the one Debian was actually asked to evaluate, that being the LPPL 1.3 draft? In any event, I have seen no statement by a Debian Developer that the LPPL 1.3 draft we saw is DFSG-compliant. Please leave determinations of compliance with the DFSG to Debian. The LaTeX Project is welcome to come up with a set of LaTeX Free Software Guidelines if it wishes. > If Debian people are going to change the guidelines, they must realize > that this will render unacceptable not only LaTeX, but also a good > part of other software, *including* some parts essential for GNU > systems like texinfo. A pretty bold statement; if the DFSG changes in *any way*, you *know* that they will become unacceptable to LaTeX and the Free Software Foundation? You are giving us an ultimatum: Never Change the DFSG. Ever. I can think of an interesting paradox that would arise if Debian were to revise the DFSG to be identical with the Open Source Definition... http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php Presumably, the LaTeX Project wants the LPPL to be considered an Open Source license. Amusing indeed if it were both OSD-compliant and DFSG-compliant, but no longer DFSG compliant if the DFSG were changed to have identical terms to the OSD... -- G. Branden Robinson | Somewhere, there is a .sig so funny Debian GNU/Linux | that reading it will cause an [EMAIL PROTECTED] | aneurysm. This is not that .sig. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
pgpzbXnIGdoRS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
