(Sorry for the massive CCs; please let me know if you read the list and don't want more.)
On Thu, 2002-10-03 at 08:18, Peter S Galbraith wrote: > 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). This is not quite correct. A "source code filename" may be required to change, as by itself it is not functional. Filenames for runtime components, however, cannot be required to change; one must be able to install a functionally equivalent, but changed, version of the program. In the LaTeX debate, this was made somewhat unclear because the files (and their names) for source and binary are identical, so changing a source filename implies changing the name of a functional component. In a traditional compiled language, however, requiring that modified source files be renamed is OK as long as the functional result ends up working the same way. I have no idea if this changes the status of mmix.
