Re: file name rules in licenses
> At some level, this type of requirement is unenforceable, isn't it? One
> can always name it "lsf" and create a wrapper "ls" that execs it. "lsf"
> satisfies the license by having a different name, and the wrapper is brand
> new code so not encumbered by someone else's copyright.
>
LPPL does not (unlike some other licences:-) insist that any derived code
is licenced in the same way, but it does state that any derived works,
apart from having different names, should be licenced with a licence
that forbids renaming back to the original.
David
_____________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet
delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further
information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call
Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: