Re: LPPL, take 2
On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, Jeff Licquia 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".
> Negative is better. Positive, to me, means "you must write this code,
> here" as opposed to "whatever you write, don't pretend to be foo".
I guess I'm just misreading it, as you and Walter both seem to think the
negative wording is free-er. It still seems to me you're requiring that
something be removed from the base format, if it makes the claim that the
LPPL work is original.
> 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?
My objection to 5b has been pretty well addressed, so I won't claim that
it makes it non-free. Fewer requirements are better, though :)
Mark Rafn email@example.com <http://www.dagon.net/>