On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 06:32:57PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Uh, _technically_ you can symlink it (or write a wrapper), but > _technically_ you could just mv it, too. But we try to adhere to the > spirit as well as the letter of the license, don't we, which would stop > us from doing that, don't we? Personally, although IANAL, I'd've expected
Nobody's implying Debian wants to do anything like this, of course. > that such obvious attempts at avoiding license restrictions wouldn't get > you all that far with a judge either. We're not willing to let people use > "dynamic linking" as a way of avoiding the GPL's tentacles, in a pretty > similar situation. A third party, who isn't even using Latex (and so not under its license), could create a symlink. IANAL, either, but apparently that's the purpose of trademarks. Anyway, this one seems a moot point; the real problem here seems to be individual components, not "Latex". (Presumably, even if they had the resources to trademark individual components, they couldn't trademark "article".) -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
