> - From my mail, it looks like two of them are likely to be
 >    * Restrictions on distribution -- requiring the distribution of
 >      the source (dtx and ins files) as well as the derived files
 >      (sty, tex, ps, pdf, etc.), despite the appearance of
 >      copyright statements.  (Debian currently distributes a
 >      separate tetex-source package that contains the dtx and ins
 >      files.)

not sure I understand that statement. The license tries to ensure that the
user of the software has a chance to get at the source and documentation and
that he doesn't get crippled versions. Most of that was prompted by very
incomplete (commercial and otherwise) versions of LaTeX which people had to
struggle with.

However we never argued against restructuring into different trees or to
provide the sources only in archived form. In fact i don't even think that the
license would prohibit to distribute only a runtime version of The Program (eg
the .sty files) togethwer with an information how to obtain the complete
documented product (we don't recomment that but i would say it is allowed)

 >    * Questions about the requirement to rename modified files.

which are?

 > If you want to get a better idea of what some of the more
 > ``hard-line'' Debian people are thinking, I (or Frank) could

i would be very interested as long as it actually brings up some arguments or
facts that can be either dissected or help to make the license better --- the
situation right now is so frustrating from my point of view because other than
rumours nothing every came to light

 > submit the text of Frank's changes to the
 > <[log in to unmask]> mailing list for discussion or
 > invite interested parties from that list to join latex-l for (at
 > least) the duration of this discussion.

i would welcome that, but i would prefer to first sort out the suggestions for
1.3 here, eg see if we can come to a conclusion on Donald's comment (and
perhaps others to come) --- if we between the LaTeX community still have
something to improve to feel comfortable with it then it is premature to
discuss that license with debian-legal.