Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks for adopting the package. However, I really do not understand > how it conflicts with point four: > > DFSG point four: > > 4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code > > The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified > form _only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with > the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. > * The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from > * modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a > * different name or version number from the original software. (This is a > compromise. The Debian group encourages all authors to not restrict any > files, source or binary, from being modified.) > > Note the starred lines. > > Now the mmix license (from boilerplate.w, minus markup): > > (c) 1999 Donald E. Knuth > > This file may be freely copied and distributed, provided that no > changes whatsoever are made. All users are asked to help keep the > MMIXware files consistent and ``uncorrupted,'' identical > everywhere in the world. Changes are permissible only if the > modified file is given a new name, different from the names of > existing files in the MMIXware package, and only if the modified > file is clearly identified as not being part of that package. > > How does that go against the DFSG point four? He permits changes, > modifications and redistribution thereof, but only if the file names > are modified and the changes are identified.
It has been argued (during the LaTeX license debate) that "the license may require derived works to carry a different name" refers to the software or package name, and not a functional item such as a source code filename (which makes modification much more difficult). Peter
