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

Re: LPPL, take 2

I think i answered about all of the points raised a minute ago

Jeff Licquia writes:

 > > 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 
 > > infringes.  
 > I would say this doesn't (or should not, anyway) infringe. 
 > Specifically, I would support the notion that a file can self-identify
 > its own changed status to satisfy 5.a.2.
 > If you want that to be more clear, how would you word it?

see my suggestion, just remove the Base Format at this point, as it is not
necessary. even if the LPPL package actually modifies code from the Base
Format it is still correct to have

  This is base format unchanged

followed by

  This is foo

as long as the base format starts unchanged as the base format and only
through the loading of Foo inside a document its code gets changed.

The difference would be if the changed code would be compiled into the base
format. but that is a different matter as in that case you would change the
work Base-Format thus you would need to make it identify itself as
"base-format-modified"  anyway, so that is fine.

 > > 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.
 > Agreed here.


 > > >  - 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.
 > With the language in 5.a.2, is 5b now irrelevant?  Changed files are
 > already required not to identify themselves to the user as unchanged,
 > which would seem to cover the case where "identification strings" were
 > displayed to the user.
 > We might want to keep 5b in a lesser form: requiring notice in the file
 > itself of changes, but without any requirement to display such a thing. 
 > This would be similar to the GPL's clause 2a.
 > What do we think of this?

basically in agreement. what do you think of my suggested rewrite of the whole


Reply to: