Re: LPPL, take 2
> Scripsit Mark Rafn <email@example.com>
> > > > 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".
> > > 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.
On Wed, 16 Apr 2003, Henning Makholm wrote:
> But it never said "the modified file must prevent other software from
> claiming blah". It said "the modified file must not itself claim blah".
Actually, it did (and no longer does).
2. The entire Derived Work, including the Base Format, does not
identify itself as the original, unmodified Work to the user in
any way when run.
This seemed to possibly require prevention of the Base Format from
identifying the entire work in any way as unmodified.
Since changed, point moot.
Mark Rafn firstname.lastname@example.org <http://www.dagon.net/>