Re: LPPL, take 2
Walter Landry writes in reply to Mark Rafn:
> > On Sat, 12 Apr 2003, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> >
> > > - 5.a.2. That's the Clause of Contention, so read it carefully. I
> > > seem to have at least some consensus on it, judging from the feedback so
> > > far; its provenance can be seen in this message and the follow-ups:
> >
> > I'm close on this one. "does not identify itself as unmodified in any
> > way" is harder for me to understand than "identifies itself as modified".
>
> It is just a little less restrictive. Instead of requiring people to
> make a positive action to show that something is modified, they only
> have to prevent it from showing that it isn't.
well, our understanding of Jeff's phrasing was different, if the above
interpreation is correct I think it needs some correction. The point is that
you can argue that
"This is longtable 1.4b by David Carlisle" (original user information)
<...some lines unrelated info like file loading ...>
"longtable xyz function patched by someguy" % informing user on change
would qualify as "identifies itself as modified"
but "does not identify itself as unmodified in any way" would make that a
no-no requiring someting like
"This is longtable 1.4b by David Carlisle with patches by someguy"
instead
now i personally wouldn't be happy about a version of longtable simply
dropping the whole line, so if the "does not identify itself as unmodified in
any way" allows for that i think it needs further clarification.
> > Does "This is LaTeX-format, unmodified" followed a few lines later by
> > "this is foo, modified by someguy" qualify? As written, I'd think this
> > infringes.
> >
> > If the initial LaTeX-format must be modified in order to make certain
> > modifications to an LPPL-licensed module, it's hard for me to see this as
> > a free license.
>
> That is how I read it as well. Requiring modified files to use the
> standard facility is too onerous.
that is how we read it as well and we think it is basically a
left-over. pending clarifaction on the above we would instead suggest the
following 5a2
2. No part of the Derived Work identifies itself as the original,
unmodified Work to the user in any way when run.
which i think resolves that well-taken point by Mark, right?
however, given the above there should be perhaps an addition along the lines
2. The Derived Work identifies itself as a modified version of the
original Work to the user when run. No part of the Derived Work
identifies itself as the original, unmodified Work to the user in any
way when run.
> > > - 5b. Mark, you were nervous about this, but I don't see an
> > > alternative or clarification in the discussion. Are you satisfied, or
> > > is there still some work to do?
> >
> > I think my objection to 5b boils down to the fact that it doesn't
> > distinguish between API strings and user-copyright strings. As long as
> > the package contains no must-modify strings which are part of the
> > container's API, I don't object. I'd strongly prefer this were clarified
> > in the license.
>
> How about changing "user" to "end user"? Would that make it clear enough?
sorry? there is no "user" in 5b)
alternative suggestion (off my head) for the whole thing:
5. If you are not the Current Maintainer of The Work, you may modify
your copy of The Work, thus creating a Derived Work based on The Work,
as long as the following conditions are met:
a. You must ensure that each modified file of the Derived Work is
clearly distinguished from the original file. This must be
achieved by causing each such modified file to carry prominent
notices detailing the nature of the changes, and by ensuring that
at least one of the following additional conditions is met:
1. The modified file is distributed with a different
Filename than the original file.
2. The Derived Work clearly identifies itself as a modified
version of the original Work to the user when run.
3. The license notice for The Work specifies that the file may
be modified without renaming, or the license notice for the
Base Format specifies that files of this class (for example,
files that are named a certain way) may be modified without
renaming.
b. No part of the Derived Work identifies itself as the original,
unmodified Work to the user in any way when run.
c. In every file of the Derived Work you must ensure that any
addresses for the reporting of errors do not refer to the Current
Maintainer's addresses in any way.
rationale: the new b) applies to it whether or not 5a1,2 or 3 is
used --- and that is really what it should
note there is no requirement to identify something to the user as
being "a modified version to X" when you choose 5a1, ie reusing code
somewhere else does not require any announcement, only drop in
replacements do.
frank
Reply to: