Re: LPPL, take 2
> Mark Rafn <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > 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".
On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, Walter Landry wrote:
> 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.
Hmm. I'm not sure it's actually less restrictive. Preventing another
piece of software (the base format) from making a claim is a lot harder
than making a positive claim yourself.
> > 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.
Agreed. They should be allowed to use whatever facility they like. That
wasn't the basis of my objection.
>> section 5b
> How about changing "user" to "end user"? Would that make it clear enough?
How about "copyright identification strings"? I suppose "end user
identification strings" works too.
Mark Rafn email@example.com <http://www.dagon.net/>