RE: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frank Mittelbach [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: 10 April 2003 19:22
> To: Jeff Licquia
> Cc: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)
> Jeff Licquia writes:
> > Let me try to improve on Branden's version, phrased a little
> > so it becomes a new 5.a.2:
> > "The entire Derived Work, including the Base Format, does not identify
> > itself as the original, unmodified Work to the user in any way when
> > run."
> > This would be accompanied by a section under "WHETHER AND HOW TO
> > DISTRIBUTE WORKS UNDER THIS LICENSE" talking about ways to ensure that
> > derived works can adhere to 5.a.2.
> > I'd really like to hear Frank or David's thoughts on this new wording,
> > since we're moving into some different territory here. What do you
> > think?
> as I said in the other mail, I think that would be something I
> think would do
> what is necessary and we could give suggestions elsewhere how to fullfil
> 5.a.2. Guess i need to think a little bit more about it to be sure, but it
> seems likely. Would be fine if it does.
I agree with Frank that this looks like something that could form the basis
of an agreed wording.