Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mmmh, I am not overly familiar with the LPPL 1.3, unfortunately (I have > not yet opened that can of worms...). > > First of all, I cannot find it in texlive packages.
It's even included multiple times (which is a bug, too, of course), for example in texlive-latex-base-doc (lppl.txt). Which is a buggy place... > It really should be copied into debian/copyright files, as mandated by > Debian Policy. Yes, and we should switch the copyright file from our own invented format to the consensus machine-readable format - we create it automatically, anyway. > Apart from this, I cannot fully understand your objection, anyway. > Do you mean that the LPPL has a definition of source that does not > allow changing its form? If you want to discuss specific aspects of the LPPL, I think you'd better - read it carefully first - read the (quite lengthy) discussions on debian-legal about it - discuss it with people who are interested in that, e.g. on debian-legal. Myself, I just take it for granted that a license which has been drafted together by the LaTeX team and some debian-legal regulars, and been reviewed and finally approved on that list, is DFSG-free. And I have no interest in discussing this; we have indeed more severe licensing problems in texlive; the woeful copyright file is just a symptom of that. >> Of course, if you apply the same patch, including versin information, to >> both files and don't recreate the generated file, no one can prove that >> you didn't abide by the wording of the license, and for sure you did >> follow the spirit. > > What if my preferred form for making modifications to foilhtml.sty is > *really* the .sty format, rather than its original source? > I mean, what if I *honestly* prefer modifying the .sty file directly? That sounds to me a bit like the "What if I prefer to modify the Postscript file directly?" argument which has for sure been brought up when people recommended the GPL, a source-aware license, for documentation. > %% Copyright Boris Veytsman 1997 > > That's not really recent. > Have you got any means to get in touch with the copyright holder (that > is to say, a currently active e-mail address)? Not without researching; the TeX developer mailinglists are a surprisingly well-working source for such information... Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
