Re: LPPL, take 2
Frank Mittelbach <email@example.com> wrote:
> Walter Landry writes:
> > Frank Mittelbach <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > Note that above we also addressed the concern by (I think Walter)
> > > concerning 5a2 so that it now only requires run-time identification
> > > if the original used runtime identification
> > Thank you. It is extremely close. It doesn't quite allow me to take
> > out parts of the program and use it in "grep" if the original program
> > identified itself originally.
> yes it does. because if you use parts of the original work as part of
> something else you would do so under 5a1 so 2 would be not required at all.
> remember 5a are alternatives.
5a1 is not a free alternative. 5a2 approaches that, but it has to
cover _every_ occasion where 5a1 fails, not just most of them.