Jeff Licquia writes: > > Well, as you see, this community has its own way of modifying > > programs. We have traditions that predate GPL, Linux and even C. We > > are quite happy with the way the things are. > > I think this is the main issue. You have a tradition for allowing > modification that is different from what we're used to. The question is > whether this tradition meets the qualifications of DFSG 3 and 4.
nicely put, that is the core issue. > Rather than make reference to "patch files" and other things that may > mean different things to different people, it may be good to talk about > what constitutes a modifiable program. Here's one description: > > - A program is modifiable if a user has the legal right to change the > program's behavior in an arbitrary way without excessive inconvenience > or requirements. hope this is a description everybody can agree with (including that it hopefully meets DSFG 3+4) > Now, the sticky word here is "excessive". In one respect, LD_PRELOAD > can be used to change any program's behavior no matter the license, but > I think we'd agree that this would be an excessive requirement. > > Taken at a "stupid level", your requirement for filename changes also > seems excessive. At face value, the cascading change requirements > (change references in this other file, which is also a change requiring > rename, which means more references to the new file have to be changed, > etc.) would make it nearly impossible to practically make changes to > LaTeX. Further, it's not clear whether further modifications beyond the > first set require yet more name changes, for reasons I've discussed > elsewhere. I hope that i will be able to proof that successfully to you. I think we now also all understand that the current LPPL license has a number of deficienies which makes it difficult to understand if you are coming from a background not rooted in the tradition of TeX/LaTeX. by a) explaining this tradition better to you and b) (with your help) drafting a different wording of LPPL I think we should be able to resolve this. again I would urge everybody to have a look at my clarification questions in http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200207/msg00250.html and answer my questions concerning the four blocks in there (perhaps adding the above definition to block b) thanks frank -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
