Re: LPPL, take 2
Frank Mittelbach <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> 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
> 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
> 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?
What if I want to distribute a non-interactive replacement for FOO?
That is, suppose someone writes a crappy version of grep that spits
out this information everytime you run it. I can't take those
announcements out. GPL 2c, on the other hand, does allow it.
> 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
I know it is not the same, but I couldn't come up with something
better. I'm open to suggestions.