Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)

["Joe Moore" <joemoore@iegrec.org>]

Frank Mittelbach said:
> 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.

But the clause indicates that "The Work" -- not a modified work, but "The
Work" can be licensed under _any_ other license that honors 7a.

So, in essence, the entire text of the LPPL draft license could be
shortened to the text of 7a (and, by reference 5a)

And also, the "any derived work" language might be seen as an attempt to
restrict the licensing preferences of derivative works.  For example, if
someone would prefer to license their modifications under a strong
copyleft license, clause 10 above would seem to suggest that EvilCorp
could "steal" the derived work under their own 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.

I see the purpose now.  I would question the wording, as it seems to me to
have a different effect than intended.

Perhaps: s/The Work, or any/A/

--Joe