On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 16:56, Mark Wielaard wrote: > It is informative to see what the FSF says about the LPPL > (from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html):
[very interesting analysis snipped] > Note: These comments are based on version 1.2 (3 Sep 1999) of the > LPPL. Note that we are discussing a draft of the 1.3 LPPL, posted here: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200207/msg00007.html > 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. True. OTOH, DFSG-freeness of the LPPL is a necessary condition for the freeness of LaTeX, even if it is not sufficient. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
