Hello, Dmitrijs! You wrote to debian-legal@lists.debian.org on Sun, 31 May 2009 18:58:04 +0100:
> 2009/5/31 Josselin Mouette <j...@debian.org>: >> Le dimanche 31 mai 2009 ? 20:52 +0900, Hideki Yamane a ?crit : >>> ÿI've ITPed IPAfont as otf-ipafont package. >> >>> ÿYou can see its license at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ipafont.html >>> ÿPlease give me your feedback (Please add CC to me). Thanks. >> >> The only things that looks suspicious are the name change clauses. >> >> For derived works: >> ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿNo one may use or include the name of the Licensed Program as a >> ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿprogram name, font name or file name of the Derived Program. >> >> And for redistribution without modification: >> ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿThe Recipient may not change the name of the Licensed Program. >> > > This is a long standing tradition within TeX to prevent namespace > collision. Back in the old days it was important that if you modify > and release something and you are not the original author you have to > change the name of the package such that you don't break the > compatability with all the TeX documents in the wild. That's a noble goal but it doesn't make it DFSG-free. AFAIR the idea is that filenames are functional so a DFSG-free license cannot prohibit their change. > This clause comes from (off top of my head) the LaTeX license LPPL just codified what was there long before. > which FSF declared > as GPL incompatible due to this renaming forcing clause. > > TeXLive is in Debian and a lot of it is license under Latex license so > that bit is DFSG-free but the example above is self-contradicting. I > think the author intended to use the Latex license instead. > > See > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses > > The Latex Project Public License 1.2 I hope most (la)tex packages have migrated to LPPL-1.3 long ago (though didn't check it). And LPPL-1.3 have dropped filename change clause after leeeengthy discussion on debian-legal. Having said that, there were some very important files with filename change clause in their licenses -- see http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/01/msg00160.html for examples. I will be glad to hear that something has changed in the last five years but I somehow doubt it. Alexander Cherepanov -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org