On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Branden Robinson wrote: > As I said earlier, the entire reason this sentence exists, as I > understand it, was as the result of an unsuccessful effort to persuade > Daniel J. Bernstein and/or the University of Washington to license some > software under DFSG-free terms. In both of those cases (qmail, pine, > etc.), those efforts failed. I don't know of any currently DFSG-free > Debian packages that would be rendered DFSG-non-free if this sentence > were deleted from the DFSG. (I invite the folks on debian-legal to > correct my ignorance if I am mistaken.)
Aside from the packages under discussion (tex and latex), are there other debian packages that have any limitation on filenames, either of the resulting binary or of source files? I'm having trouble reconciling my own opinions that "a small filename limitation is ok", "a lot of filename limitations are too onerous", and "debian has thousands of packages, each of which might have a small filename limitation". I'm trying to decide whether to modify my opinion to be more strongly opposed to ANY filename limitation. I'm starting to lean toward the attitude that any source file limitation is non-free (it interferes with the "preferred form for editing", meaning the distributed source is not really the free source), and any command-name limitation should only be done via trademark. -- Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.dagon.net/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
