Re: LPPL, take 2
Walter Landry writes:
> 5a1 is not a free alternative. 5a2 approaches that, but it has to
> cover _every_ occasion where 5a1 fails, not just most of them.
I don't think it is acceptable that you take a list of "or"s, judge each of
them individually and conclude that each of them is not 100% therefore the
whole can't be either. Not 5a2 has to fullfil DSFG but 5a.
if i distribute FOO (that does runtime info to users ie is interactive in this
sense) under lppl you can of course use parts of foo in "grep" since "FOO" neq
"grep" there is no requirement for at all.
if you want to distribute a variant FOO as a replacement for the original FOO
then it would be "interactive" as well, thus the requirement in 5a2 would be
reasonable where would that conflict with DSFG?
ps your suggested rewrite is by no means similar to GPL 2c since 2c depends on
an external fact about the modified program "being interactive or not" while
your rewrite makes the applicability a decision of the author of the Derived
Work which has no binding at all