Hi, On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 22:30, Mark Rafn wrote: > > Note that in the above, `distribution' of a file means making the file > > available to others by any means. This includes, for instance, > > installing the file on any machine in such a way that the file is > > accessible by users other than yourself. > > Did this bother anyone else, or am I out in left field again? I don't > think it's actually enforceable, as it becomes a use constraint rather > than a distribution (in the normal sense of the word) constraint, but even > the attempt is unpleasant. I can accept (unhappily) some hoops required > to give out modified copies of your software. I cannot accept that a > Debian customer isn't allowed to change the software on a machine she owns > (but isn't the sole user) without following these hoops.
It is informative to see what the FSF says about the LPPL (from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html): The LaTeX Project Public License. This license is an incomplete statement of the distribution terms for LaTeX. As far as it goes, it is a free software license, but incompatible with the GPL because it has many requirements that are not in the GPL. This license contains complex and annoying restrictions on how to publish a modified version, including one requirement that falls just barely on the good side of the line of what is acceptable: that any modified file must have a new name. The reason this requirement is acceptable for LaTeX is that LaTeX has a facility to allow you to map file names, to specify ``use file bar when file foo is requested''. With this facility, the requirement is merely annoying; without the facility, the same requirement would be a serious obstacle, and we would have to conclude it makes the program non-free. The LPPL says that some files, in certain versions of LaTeX, may have additional restrictions, which could render them non-free. For this reason, it may take some careful checking to produce a version of LaTeX that is free software. The LPPL makes the controversial claim that simply having files on a machine where a few other people could log in and access them in itself constitutes distribution. We believe courts would not uphold this claim, but it is not good for people to start making the claim. Please do not use this license for any other project. Note: These comments are based on version 1.2 (3 Sep 1999) of the LPPL. They seem to tolerate the filename changing requirement in the special case of Latex since it is so easy to circumvent. I believe not everybody on this list is yet convinced of that though. Solving http://bugs.debian.org/153257 (tetex-bin: License contradictions) that Richard Braakman filed somewhere at the beginning of this whole discussion is a pre-requirement for deciding whether or not Latex can be distributed as Free Software at all. And they have the same reservation you have about accessibility of files. Cheers, Mark -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
