Comment Re:Historically (or currently) (Score 1) 429
Which packages are ones which employed or employ licences which "require derived works to carry a different name"?
Severall tex/latex file have such a licence, for example
has the following licence:
Unlimited copying and redistribution of this file are permitted as long as this file is not modified. Modifications are permitted, but only if the resulting file is not named plain.mf.
Note that this is less troublesome for tex/latex than for many other thing because you can put into a file an information saying that when tex want to read the file "foo" it should use the file "bar" instead.
Did Debian rename them?
Well, as we have the same right than anybody over those file, we don't have the same problem than with firefox. So no we don't (or maybe if we have modified them, I don't know).
Perhaps if there's some historical cases of this happening I can relate to the problem might be clearer?
I've heard that there exist someone who have tried to make a software shipped by debian by giving a licence making the software free as long as it is part of debian, and non-free otherwise. But for what I know, it may be only an urban legend, I've no link nor name.
