Re: Towards a new LPPL draft
Richard Braakman writes:
> Hmm, I thought of a perhaps more practical example that also illustrates
> my desire for transitive closure. What if you take a piece of code from
> an LPPL'ed work and use it in another project? This other project might
> lack any facility for remappping filenames. Should it be required to
> add a remapping facility to a project that doesn't otherwise need it,
> just to satisfy an allegedly free license?
no, but if we rework the file renaming requirement to the requirement to be
identifiable distinguiable if called from within pristine LaTeX (or more
generally from within the underlying virtual machine) then the problem would
go away, wouldn't it?
remember there is no requirement (or at least that is what the license
shouldsay in the end) whatsoever on the license for a derived work except that
it should put under a license that explicitly forbits to have the derived work
or any furth modification being renamed to the original work (or in the
new wording: make the derived work be undistinguishable from the original when
loding into pristine latex).
what i try to say is that the use of that code in a different project doesn't
make lppl apply for the derived work except with the single clause for not
putting it back into latex under its original "interface name".
so i think your transitive closure is in no danger at all
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com