Re: LPPL, take 2
Branden Robinson writes:
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > This is somewhat new ground for a DFSG-free license. Is it *really*
> > > that important?
> >
> > yes, we think it is. It is protecting the original author and/or
> > maintainer from receiving unnecessary misdirected (and that's the point)
> > call for help support on a product for which he made no offer to
> > support. again this may be a community difference, but in the TeX
> > community people understand the bug/support address as an offer for to
> > give support for a particular file (Work) in which it is found.
>
> I understand the rationale. I'm concerned about the wording. Would the
> following violate 5(c)?
>
> % LaTeX-Foobar 1.2.9, copyright 2001--2003 John A. Doe
> %
> % Please report errors to <johndoe@example.com>.
> %
> % MODIFIED BY Jack Smith 2003/04/10 to improve widow and orphan
> % handling.
> %
> % Please report errors in this version to <jacksmith@example.com> and do
> % not use John Doe's address.
an interesting boundary case. would the following be slander?
Branden Robinson is a stupid person
I haven't said that and i don't think so, I only heard somebody saying that
sentence on the street while passing by and was wondering what it meant.
-----
i think that your example is clear enough to make people understand that
original bug address is probably no longer the right thing to use, but even so
it is information that is in logical conflict with other information and so
even if put side by side users might get confused by the contradicting
data. so why should it be wrong to require it not to be contradicting?
the moment there are 20 lines of technical changes between or other information
> % MODIFIED BY Jack Smith 2003/04/10 to improve widow and orphan
> % handling.
and
> % Please report errors in this version to <jacksmith@example.com> and do
> % not use John Doe's address.
we can be quite sure that a lot people will never reach the part that says do
not use "John Doe's address", just you may not have seen this part of my
argument while looking at my email at first
frank
Reply to: