I've read most of the archives, but couldn't find any comments on what I
think is the biggest misfeature of the LPPL3. Keep in mind that I'm not
speaking for the FSF here, just for me. The FSF hasn't made any
decisions yet.
Added in LPPL3:
{+If The Program is distributed in a packed form with a number of files
to be generated by some unpacking method from the distributed files,
then these derived files are logically (even if not physically
present) part of The Program and are covered by this license
independently of the method of their generation.+}
So, if article.whatever is distributed in a tarball (packed form) with
some other software (a number of files to be generated by some unpacking
method (untar) from the distributed files (tarball)), then this other
software is logically part of The Program and is covered by the
LPPL....
The DFSG says:
9.
License Must Not Contaminate Other Software
The license must not place restrictions on other software that is
distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license
must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium
must be free software.
--
-Dave Turner
GPL Compliance Engineer
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
