Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia
Scripsit Frank Mittelbach <email@example.com>
> There are a number of myths it seems concerning what is allowed or
> not and how LPPL must or can be applied.
> here are some of them:
> - to fork you have to rename every package under LPPL
> all of them wrong (and explained over and over again by now)
It has been *asserted* over and over again that this is wrong, but
that assertation does not seem to be consistent with the actual
license text we're discussing. It says that each *file* must be
renamed if it is changed, and since each package is a file that has
the package name as its file name, it logically follows that one would
have to rename all packages.
Have I overlooked something in the license?
> so let us come back to the question whether the intentions behind LPPL (eg
> our abstract principles) are in conflict with DSFG and if not try to help us
> reformulating it so that everything gets clearer.
I'm confused about what you mean here. Since it already has been
established that the ideal goals seem to be compatible, why do you
insist that we "come back" to that question instead of moving on to
"reformulating it so that everything gets clearer"?
Henning Makholm "Slip den panserraket og læg
dig på jorden med ansigtet nedad!"
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com