> At some level, this type of requirement is unenforceable, isn't it? One > can always name it "lsf" and create a wrapper "ls" that execs it. "lsf" > satisfies the license by having a different name, and the wrapper is brand > new code so not encumbered by someone else's copyright. >
LPPL does not (unlike some other licences:-) insist that any derived code is licenced in the same way, but it does state that any derived works, apart from having different names, should be licenced with a licence that forbids renaming back to the original. David _____________________________________________________________________ This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
