Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
>>> 1. You must make your modified package output to the screen a message
>>> that it isn't Standard LaTeX.
>> Would it be possible to use GPL wording for this? The ability NOT to do
>> this when written for non-interactive use is important.
> Uh, better yet, let's use what the GPL's wording *should* be. See the
> PHPNuke thread.
I'd agree, except that I don't think there was any consensus (or even
suggestion, but my memory is imperfect) on what such a wording should be.
Much of the discussion was around whether the requirement to inform users
(as opposed to recipients) of anything can be free. It seemed to me that
it is acceptible in part due to it's ambiguity and the ability to ignore
it in many cases (non-interactive use).
GPL 2c isn't perfect, and I'd be happier without it entirely, but it's
pretty clearly an allowed restriction that a free software license can make.
On Wed, 9 Apr 2003, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Mandating technologies in license documents really rubs me the wrong
I'll say that more strongly: mandating use of a specific technology or
method of communication is a non-free restriction on the type of
modification allowed. This type of thing belongs in adjunct documentation
and community feedback on good citizenship.
> Why not say something like:
> "If you distribute modified copies of the work, you must ensure that its
> modified status is clearly, unambiguously, and obviously communicated to
> users of the work."?
IMO, this is non-free without the GPL's permission to ignore this in
non-interactive use. Also, your proposal goes WAY further than requiring
a notice that a user could see if she is interested, it requires that the
user is prevented from suppressing it.
I definitely agree with the direction though - license requirements should
be non-technical in nature.
Mark Rafn firstname.lastname@example.org <http://www.dagon.net/>