Re: LPPL, take 2
Mark Rafn <email@example.com> wrote:
> 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".
It is just a little less restrictive. Instead of requiring people to
make a positive action to show that something is modified, they only
have to prevent it from showing that it isn't.
> 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.
That is how I read it as well. Requiring modified files to use the
standard facility is too onerous.
> > - 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.
How about changing "user" to "end user"? Would that make it clear enough?