Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
Jeff Licquia writes in reply to Joe Moore:
> On Wed, 2003-04-02 at 13:45, Joe Moore wrote:
> > > 10. The Work, or any Derived Work, may be distributed under a
> > > different license, as long as that license honors the conditions in
> > > Clause 7a, above.
> >
> > This clause confuses me.
well, the main reason for this clause, or a clause similar to it, is to make
it clear that the license does _not_ require to have modified works be
licensed by the same license (as some licenses require) but instead that the
only requirement is that by using a different license you do not create a work
for that it is allowed to generate a work would be in violation of LPPL if it
would be directly generated from the original work.
> > Is this really saying that I can distribute The Work, or ANY Derived Work,
> > under any license I choose, as long as 7a (which is really just a pointer
> > to 5a, which says that if you're not the current maintainer, you must make
> > modifications sufficiently obvious) is satisfied?
>
> As I understand it, yes, this is the intent.
yes that is the intent, though 7a is a pointer to 5a _in regard to the
original work_ thus even if you are the maintainer of your derived work this
does not mean that you, or somebody else is allowed to ignore 5a with respect
to the original work.
> > For example, you could distribute The Work under a DWTFYW[0] license, plus
> > the condition that it never be distributed as files named pig.*
>
> I believe this is correct.
correct, explicitly applying 5a1 would be a simple form of an acceptable
license.
> > I'm curious what the reasoning is for this clause.
>
> I'll leave that to the LaTeX people to respond to, if they wish.
well, as i said we would like to give the author of a derived work more
freedom what to do with his/her derived work, then, say, GPL does. For example
it would be ok to use a non-free license if he/she chooses to do so.
frank
Reply to: