> >If the situation allows for the renaming of only a few things--and > >only user commands, really--then I don't mind *that* much. If the > >situation requires the renaming of a jillion things, then I mind.
I'd go further than Thomas. I'm torn between "No renaming, nohow noway" and "If it requires renaming only because it's acting as a poor-man's trademark, I'll put up with it". "LaTeX" is a trademarkeable name (IMO), and requiring that something not be called that if it's modified is allowable. "article" is not, and cannot be so restricted. Though I dislike the principle of using copyright for this, a trademark wouldn't necessarily make something non-free and neither should this. Note that trademark can not prevent functional replacement. Any file renaming requirement must not affect the functioning of the program. On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, David Carlisle wrote: > If you decide that it is OK for package A to have a renaming rule, then > that decision should hold, even if the authors of a jillion other packages > choose the same distribution option for their packages. Sure, if they're seperate packages AND they're trademarkable names. I don't think that's the case here. > That is the situuation we are in here. LPPL has proved popular.There are > hundreds (jillions) of independently distributed packages using the > same licence. I don't find it unreasonable to reject a package based on the number or scope of filename limitations. This leads to the conclusion that we might accept the exact same files if they were in 10 independent packages but reject them if they were all in one. If pushed, I will concede that this is illogical, and the rule should really be "filename limitations make a package non-free" -- Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.dagon.net/>
