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 important. 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 files 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. Claire +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ Man cannot be civilised, or be kept civilised by what he does in his spare time; only by what he does as his work. W.R. Lethaby +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ C.M. Connelly [log in to unmask] SHC, DS +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+