[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Towards a new LPPL draft

> The "fine-ness" I was referring to was that, for works that add the
> "LPPL 1.2 or any later version" language to the license, we aren't
> required by law to hunt them down.

Law's the law but I just wanted to stress that this is one of (perhaps the
main) constraint that Frank and I have. Knowing that legally we can
change the licence any way we want doesn't really help.
Would you be pleased if you'd licenced your code under GPL version 1 or
any later version and then FSF released a GPL v 1001 that was LPPL
(or the licence from Microsoft word)? I suspect not. By agreeing to
licence under "any later version" terms an author is showing a certain
amount of faith in the distributor of the licence. Faith's more
important than the law here...

> This sounds very close to what I posted in the "try 2" thread.  If you
> don't like what's there, then I'd be very interested in what you don't
> like, as the delta in intent between what you wrote and what I wrote
> seems very small.

Yes just catching up (day job, you know:-), I may respond to that
thread later, (or I may go to bed, we'll see..)

> I don't know if you've delved down to the API call suggestions yet, but
> that's one way to provide that.

I've read the messages, implications haven't sunk in yet, so I want to
wait a bit before commenting on the details.


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: