On Sat, Jul 20, 2002 at 11:04:42PM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote: > > As long as you offer DFSG-free options, you can offer as many other > > options as you want. You can say: "you can distribute modified files if > > 1: you rename the program to something other than 'Latex', 2: you rename > > all modified files, *or* 3: you swear loyalty to Frank Mittelbach." > > #1 is DFSG-free. #2 (and presumably #3) is not, but we don't have to > > choose them. > > i don't want an explanation for #3 :-) but I would like to see an argument for > #2 not being DSFG-complient.
"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" ... The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software." There are other things that are allowed in practice, such as requiring modifications to be documented. Filename changing isn't one of them, since that's far more cumbersome, especially where filenames have a direct impact on the language, as they do here. (Even where they don't, it has other practical problems. For example, if you do use patch files for your changes, they won't work well, since "diff" doesn't know you renamed the file. Similar problems with "cvs diff" and "cvs rdiff", which makes it difficult or impossible to use CVS to merge a tree with a new upstream version.) -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
