Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
On Wed, 2003-04-09 at 18:56, Mark Rafn wrote:
> > Why not say something like:
> > "If you distribute modified copies of the work, you must ensure that its
> > modified status is clearly, unambiguously, and obviously communicated to
> > users of the work."?
> IMO, this is non-free without the GPL's permission to ignore this in
> non-interactive use. Also, your proposal goes WAY further than requiring
> a notice that a user could see if she is interested, it requires that the
> user is prevented from suppressing it.
> I definitely agree with the direction though - license requirements should
> be non-technical in nature.
Let me try to improve on Branden's version, phrased a little differently
so it becomes a new 5.a.2:
"The entire Derived Work, including the Base Format, does not identify
itself as the original, unmodified Work to the user in any way when
This would be accompanied by a section under "WHETHER AND HOW TO
DISTRIBUTE WORKS UNDER THIS LICENSE" talking about ways to ensure that
derived works can adhere to 5.a.2.
I'd really like to hear Frank or David's thoughts on this new wording,
since we're moving into some different territory here. What do you
Jeff Licquia <firstname.lastname@example.org>