Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have attached a new working draft for the LaTeX Project Public License > (LPPL) below.
At first glance, everything looks fine except for section 5. > 5. If you are not the Current Maintainer of The Work, you may modify > your copy of The Work, thus creating a Derived Work based on The Work, > as long as the following conditions are met: > > a. You must ensure that each modified file of the Derived Work is > clearly distinguished from the original file. This must be > achieved by causing each such modified file to carry prominent > notices detailing the nature of the changes, and by ensuring that > at least one of the following additional conditions is met: This part is the main point of contention. At least one of the conditions must be DFSG-free. > 1. The modified file is distributed with a different > Filename than the original file. Not free enough, for reasons spelled out before. > 2. If the file is used directly by the Base Format when run, and > the Base Format provides a facility for such files to be > validated as being original parts of The Work, then the file > does not represent itself as being the unmodified original > Work. This does not imply that the Base Format must provide > such a facility; only that, if such a facility is available, > it must be used in the normal way and it must enable the Base > Format to validate as being modified. If the Base Format does > not provide such a file validation facility, then the file may > be modified without reference to such a facility. I think that this is not good enough. This sounds a lot like "trusted computing". There are valid reasons to want to run untrusted versions. This is basically a restriction on what kinds of modification you can make. > 3. The license notice for The Work specifies that the file may > be modified without renaming, or the license notice for the > Base Format specifies that files of this class (for example, > files that are named a certain way) may be modified without > renaming. This is just making it easy to add an exception to this section. Great if it is there, but it isn't always. > b. You must change any identification string in any modified file of > the Derived Work to indicate clearly that the modified file is > not part of The Work in its original form. > > c. In every file of the Derived Work you must ensure that any > addresses > for the reporting of errors do not refer to the Current > Maintainer's > addresses in any way. Strings for other programs (think browser id-strings) must be modifiable to anything at all. Strings strictly for human consumption can be required to indicate that it is different. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
