On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 11:33:51AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 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).
>
> Not quite right. If only a source code filename were implicated, that
> would not be a problem. It's restrictions on what gets *installed*
> that is the problem.
As someone else explained (check the bug log for who; sorry, I don't
remember): the key piece is that there is no permission in the license
for modified code to be DISTRIBUTED. That's where the problem appears
to actually lie.
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London
website: http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jdg/
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see: http://people.debian.org/~jdg/
Visit http://www.thehungersite.com/ to help feed the hungry
