Perhaps it just comes down to nuances of language.
David Carlisle <[log in to unmask]> writes to LATEX-L:
> 4) In practice, Debian recognizes "a different name or version number"
> to refer *works*, not filenames. Permission to mandate or forbid the
> . . .
> This misses the point that in latex filenames are part of the end-user
> loads "longtable.sty" which is part of the core latex distribution.
> Under msdos this gets stored in all sorts of ways longtabl.sty lontable.sty
> longtab~1.sty, whatever, . . .
LaTeX is a _project_.
Any of a LaTeX class, package, literate-programming wrapper, ...
is a LaTeX _work_.
With such new language in LPPL wouldn't renaming and version-numbering
restrictions be appropriate under DFSG? Then have language in the
license to the effect that technical changes not changing the _work_
The new license might contain a URI pointing to the TDS standard
with some mention of its relevance.
The new license might also contain a URI pointing to a CTAN doc
with guidelines on how a distribution implementer (such as Cygwin,
Mac OS X, Redhat, Debian, SuSE, ...) can provide a distribution of
LaTeX without breaking it.
Isn't TUG's TeXLive the only free (as-in-speech) distribution we know
to be maximally reliable these days?
Ummm ... glug ... what type of object under LPPL should the URN
"TDS:/$VARTEXMF/web2c/latex.fmt be? :-)
P.S. Just because present LPPL might not conform to DFSG does not
mean that LaTeX is not free. Assertions to the contrary represent
just one of a number of extant misappropriations of the word "free",
not the least of which is that now going with "free market" to mean
"narrow oligopoly not under the burden of governmental regulation" --
a notion that would, I suspect, be quite appalling to Adam Smith.