Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> The filename limitations are now optional; 5.a.1 is one possibility of
> three. As for 5.a.2 and the programmatic identification strings, can
> you elaborate? Considering that much of the wording in the license is
> mine (including 5.a.2), it's entirely possible that the parts you object
> to are because of my poor wording and are not a fundamental difference.
5.a.1 restricts filenames (worse, filenames which are part of an API).
5.a.2 Prevents modifications on certain systems (those using a validating
Base Format).
5.a.3 doesn't apply without an additional grant of permission from
somewhere else.
None of these alternatives describe free software.
I take your point about 5b - if this is intended to refer to non-api
strings like copyright information and such that may be spit out, I have
no objection. I'm still a bit uncomfortable with this, as I recall from
the previous discussion something about using these strings to validate
modules. You might consider GPL-like wording for this.
--
Mark Rafn dagon@dagon.net <http://www.dagon.net/>
Reply to: