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

Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)

On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Jeff Licquia wrote:

> The filename limitations are now optional; 5.a.1 is one possibility of
> three.  As for 5.a.2 and the programmatic identification strings, can
> you elaborate?  Considering that much of the wording in the license is
> mine (including 5.a.2), it's entirely possible that the parts you object
> to are because of my poor wording and are not a fundamental difference.

5.a.1 restricts filenames (worse, filenames which are part of an API).  
5.a.2 Prevents modifications on certain systems (those using a validating 
Base Format).
5.a.3 doesn't apply without an additional grant of permission from 
somewhere else.

None of these alternatives describe free software.  

I take your point about 5b - if this is intended to refer to non-api 
strings like copyright information and such that may be spit out, I have 
no objection.  I'm still a bit uncomfortable with this, as I recall from 
the previous discussion something about using these strings to validate 
modules.  You might consider GPL-like wording for this.
Mark Rafn    dagon@dagon.net    <http://www.dagon.net/>  

Reply to: