Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
Actually, you can always distribute patches (at least in the US, and only up to a point). You can even distribute patches to Oracle or Photoshop. You just can't distribute the originals or a patched binary without permission. In any case, DFSG #4 specifically allows a requirement that source be distributed as pristine + patches. Requiring source to accompany the "binary" is an uncontroversial requirement under the DFSG. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
