[tex-live] Removal of csplain from Debian

[Reinhard Kotucha]

Norbert Preining writes:
 > On Don, 06 Sep 2007, David Kastrup wrote:
 > >     This macro package (csplain.ini, il2code.tex, csfonts.tex, hyphen.lan,
 > >     plaina4.tex) is free software; you can use it without any restriction.
 > >     You can redistribute it under the following condition: 
 > > 
 > >     You can do any changes in this software for your own usage. However,
 > >     you cannot distribute the changed software under the same name
 > >     "csplain".  Only the current administrator of CSTeX can do official
 > >     changes to csplain.
 > > 
 > > This sort of restriction was what required the last LPPL changes, so
 > > it would be my guess that whatever changes were done recently would
 > > not actually be sufficient.  However, it is not clear what "under the
 > > same name" actually means here: is it the file name, or the system
 > 
 > II would say that I am not allowed to distribute those 5 files under the
 > name
 > 	csplain
 > Anything else is allowed.

I suppose that wording is important in US law.  In Germany, if a law is
unclear, referees have to interpret it in a way that it makes sense.
Especially, what counts is the intention of the law, not the wording.
At least if the wording is unclear, doesn't make sense, or is not
applicable. 

I think that it's clear what Petr wants to achieve.  Maybe not
everybody knows, I had been told that Petr wrote a book and, of
course, he wants that things work as described in this book.

Petr, here is your last CangeLog entry:

 > ** 7 ** <Sep. 2007>
 > * Only the Copyright text was changed in order to the "GNU" name is not
 >   mentioned in it. The meaning of Copyright is unchanged.
 >   I was forced to do this change by Debian people. They consider the
 >   license as very important but I don't. IMHO the functionality of 
 >   the software is much more important.

I assume that you mean that it doesn't make much fun to deal with all
this annoying legal stuff when you say that you don't consider the
license as important.

The license is very important, especially if you don't want people to
distribute modified files under the same name.

I understand you very well if you want to avoid to delve too deeply
into the legal stuff.  A good solution is to use a standard license.
For what you want, LPPL is the best choice.  Definitely.  At least,
all the discussions could then be avoided.

You said:

 > I was forced to do this change by Debian people.

No, this is *definitely* not a Debian problem.  And I'm pretty sure
you are aware of this.  You will have problems with other
distributions, too.

Petr, it seems that that you are very upset at the moment.  You
obviously wrote the ChangeLog entry immediately after you received
Norbert's mail.  Please calm down.

If a further discussion makes sense at all, it should be more
issue-related than emotional.

Regards,
  Reinhard

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reinhard Kotucha			              Phone: +49-511-4592165
Marschnerstr. 25
D-30167 Hannover	                      mailto:reinhard.kotucha at web.de
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft isn't the answer. Microsoft is the question, and the answer is NO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------