I really do understand the *purpose* of the LPPL. I agree that
its primary goal appears to be maintaining consistency so that a
document using a specific group of package generates more-or-less
the same typeset representation no matter where it's processed. I
even think that goal is a worthy one.
What I'm trying to point out, though, is that there are some
people (*not me*) in the Debian Project who believe that there are
aspects of the LPPL that conflict with the Debian Free Software
Guidelines. Assuming that you care about DFSG status (and
therefore about LaTeX being distributable by Debian and other
projects that use the DFSG as a guide -- the Open Source
Initiative's criteria are essentially identical to the DFSG),
understanding the conflicts and considering alternatives is
Once again, the main concerns appear to be
1. The restriction on modifying files without changing their
names, even if those files will never be distributed
2. The requirement to distribute modified (and renamed) files
with a complete set of the unmodified versions of those
There are additional quibbles about some perceived redundancy; the
precise wording of various phrases; and the placement of
punctuation that can subtly change the meaning of particular
clauses, as well, but I'll leave that to the people with those
concerns to articulate.
I'm not the one making these judgements, and I don't necessarily
agree with them. I'm simply passing them along so that you can
take them into consideration in order to ensure that they can pass
muster with organizations using the DFSG or DFSG-like criteria to
judge the ``freedom'' of licenses.
Man cannot be civilised, or be kept civilised by what he does in his
spare time; only by what he does as his work.
C.M. Connelly [log in to unmask] SHC, DS