4) In practice, Debian recognizes "a different name or version number" to refer *works*, not filenames. Permission to mandate or forbid the renaming of files is not explicitly granted here, and would not make sense from a technological perspective (what to do about primitive filesystems with length limitations on filenames, which mandate version information in the filename itself, are not case-sensitive, or otherwise restrict us from the liberties we are accustomed to enjoying on modern Unix filesystems?). Surely you'd agree that a work retains its identity regardless of its title or what means are used to identify it. I can't digitally edit a Disney movie to replace the title with my own and thus ignore Disney's copyright on the movie. This misses the point that in latex filenames are part of the end-user syntax. \usepackage{longtable} 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, But the underlying TeX system's file handling calls just have to do the mapping. TeX's file handling is always system dependent and maps the user syntax to whatever it is (even flat extensionless case insenstitive file systems on mainframes etc). LaTeX doesn't "know" of this mapping, it happens at the TeX level. Storing longtable.sty on a filesystem that doesn't support 8 letter names isn't considered renaming (or shouldn't be) if the TeX system will locate the file with the same \usepackage{longtable} command. No, I mean that it's not acceptable for the copyright holders of LaTeX to assert intellectual property rights in works created using LaTeX, such as masters' theses, conference proceedings, journal articles, or philosophical screeds. Since there is nothing in LPPL or any other part of the latex distribution that should lead you to think this might be the case, why bring it up? Of course that's not acceptable. > Why would it be impossible to implement? I can do it in the shell: #!/bin/sh if [ -e /usr/share/tex/MODIFIED ]; then echo >&2 "WARNING: MODIFIED VERSION OF TEX DETECTED! OUTPUT MAY NOT \ BE = STANDARDS-CONFORMANT!" and you are offering to port that shell script to every system that runs latex? some of which, as you point out above may not have directory structures at all, never mind implementations of /bin/sh. What is the advantage to the end user of having a "latex" that outputs such a command as opposed to a different command altogenther. Many users of latex never see a command line (or the terminal output) latex runs behind the scenes as a print engine from a front end editing tool. (not least, emacs). * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). * The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. All those freedoms are preserved by the LPPL. The issue of renaming is an issue but it does not relate to those core freedoms. It seems to me like either there is some miscommunication here, or that you are not interested in the LPPL being a free software license. LPPL is a free software licence. The issue is whether or not it conforms to the DFSG. Debian do not have a monopoly on the use of the word Free. It doesn't really help if you use language like "not interested" when Frank has clearly indicated that virtually all the text of LPPL is under the knife and can be changed if it will help meet the letter of the DFSG. But it needs technical discussion of problematic points in the licence, not such broad generalisations. the subject of eliminating clause 4 from our guidelines has been raised before, and may come to a vote sometime this year. Presumably, you will want the LPPL to be a DFSG-free license regardless of the outcome of such a vote. if that were the case you would presumably remove TeX and the TeX fonts from Debian as well. In that case the licence on LaTeX would be moot as without TeX you can't use LaTeX whatever the licence. David