Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Yikes. I'd accept the former as free before the latter, personally. >> Giving users options is one thing, but option two seems to suggest >> that if Latex is forked for some reason we'll need to ferry around the >> original (from the date of the fork) version of latex whenever >> distributing the new version, forever. That's a far more onerous >> requirement than file renaming, imho. > > This is specifically allowed by DFSG #4. The Q Public License uses > this feature as well. If you don't like it, feel free to call a > General Resolution to change it. Until then, it is still part of the > DFSG. It's quite similar, yes, but I can distribute a patch without the file it patches. If, for example, I have to include an entire pristine Latex installation with any fork, that's a significant burden indeed. Not that the LPPL could necessarily legally require such a thing, but if that's the intent of the Latex developers, I find it too onerous. In fact, as a rather off-topic question, if you have a license to distribute but not modify a package with three files (foo, bar & baz), and you have a patch for foo that makes it a useful program in its own right, can you distribute foo + patch, omitting bar & baz? But I imagine that if this is possible at all it falls into some murky category of fair use. -- Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
