Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
Jeff Licquia <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I have attached a new working draft for the LaTeX Project Public License
> (LPPL) below.
At first glance, everything looks fine except for section 5.
> 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:
This part is the main point of contention. At least one of the
conditions must be DFSG-free.
> 1. The modified file is distributed with a different
> Filename than the original file.
Not free enough, for reasons spelled out before.
> 2. If the file is used directly by the Base Format when run, and
> the Base Format provides a facility for such files to be
> validated as being original parts of The Work, then the file
> does not represent itself as being the unmodified original
> Work. This does not imply that the Base Format must provide
> such a facility; only that, if such a facility is available,
> it must be used in the normal way and it must enable the Base
> Format to validate as being modified. If the Base Format does
> not provide such a file validation facility, then the file may
> be modified without reference to such a facility.
I think that this is not good enough. This sounds a lot like "trusted
computing". There are valid reasons to want to run untrusted
versions. This is basically a restriction on what kinds of
modification you can make.
> 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
This is just making it easy to add an exception to this section.
Great if it is there, but it isn't always.
> b. You must change any identification string in any modified file of
> the Derived Work to indicate clearly that the modified file is
> not part of The Work in its original form.
> c. In every file of the Derived Work you must ensure that any
> for the reporting of errors do not refer to the Current
> addresses in any way.
Strings for other programs (think browser id-strings) must be
modifiable to anything at all. Strings strictly for human consumption
can be required to indicate that it is different.