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

Re: LPPL, take 2

Frank Mittelbach <frank.mittelbach@latex-project.org> 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.

Walter Landry

Reply to: