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

Re: LPPL, take 2

On Sat, 12 Apr 2003, Jeff Licquia wrote:

>  - 5.a.2.  That's the Clause of Contention, so read it carefully.  I
> seem to have at least some consensus on it, judging from the feedback so
> far; its provenance can be seen in this message and the follow-ups:

I'm close on this one.  "does not identify itself as unmodified in any 
way" is harder for me to understand than "identifies itself as modified".

Does "This is LaTeX-format, unmodified" followed a few lines later by
"this is foo, modified by someguy" qualify?  As written, I'd think this 

If the initial LaTeX-format must be modified in order to make certain
modifications to an LPPL-licensed module, it's hard for me to see this as
a free license.

>  - 5b.  Mark, you were nervous about this, but I don't see an
> alternative or clarification in the discussion.  Are you satisfied, or
> is there still some work to do?

I think my objection to 5b boils down to the fact that it doesn't
distinguish between API strings and user-copyright strings.  As long as
the package contains no must-modify strings which are part of the
container's API, I don't object.  I'd strongly prefer this were clarified
in the license.
Mark Rafn    dagon@dagon.net    <http://www.dagon.net/>  

Reply to: