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

Re: LPPL, take 2

> Mark Rafn <dagon@dagon.net> 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    dagon@dagon.net    <http://www.dagon.net/>  

Reply to: