Re: LPPL, take 2
Frank Mittelbach <email@example.com> wrote:
> Walter Landry writes in reply to Mark Rafn:
> > > > - 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?
> sorry? there is no "user" in 5b)
Right. Sorry. Not thinking straight.
> alternative suggestion (off my head) for the whole thing:
> 5. If you are not the Current Maintainer of The Work, you may modify
> your copy of The Work, thus creating a Derived Work based on The Work,
> as long as the following conditions are met:
> a. You must ensure that each modified file of the Derived Work is
> clearly distinguished from the original file. This must be
> achieved by causing each such modified file to carry prominent
> notices detailing the nature of the changes, and by ensuring that
> at least one of the following additional conditions is met:
> 1. The modified file is distributed with a different
> Filename than the original file.
> 2. The Derived Work clearly identifies itself as a modified
> version of the original Work to the user when run.
Does this mean that if I license "grep" under this license, it always
spits out a "modified by foo" blurb? I think you need to word it more
like GPL 2c. Unfortunately, LaTeX is not really an interactive
command, so the exact wording of GPL 2c wouldn't work for you. I
can't think of a good wording right now.