MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Frank =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=FCster?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> I tried to read the old discussions about the LPPL, [...] > > I guess you're referring to things like "analysis of latest LPPL revision" > by Branden Robinson in June and September 2003, but you don't say. It's > rather difficult to discuss things without knowing what they are.
This one, and lots of other threads about the LPPL. > Even > then, it seems like it wasn't totally consensual about the problem. Indeed. >> MJ Ray said, without anyone contradicting that: [...] > > I wouldn't read much into that. On my screen, no-one besides you replied > at all. Which can mean that nobody considers this to be a problem. >> So here the lesson seems to be that also filename change requirements >> are acceptable as long as they do not impose any "relevant" >> restrictions, with the question what's relevant depending on the >> individual case. > > I strongly argue against including irrelevant junk in a licence, as it > can turn out to be lawyerbombs. Agreed, but I'm dealing with licensors who are either completely unavailable or unreachable, or not willing to understand the problem... > So, get clarification/removal if you can, but if the only problem in the > licence is a practically-ineffective restriction whose workaround is > noted in the copyright file, I'm not going to file a serious bug over it. Yes, I guess that's the attitude I should also take myself in the cases where there's no possibility to reach/convince upstream. Except dropping the file, of course, if the restriction is *not* ineffective. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)