Jeremy Hankins writes: > Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Except that you can't make GPL code validate with the LPPL validator, > > since the GPL and LPPL are not compatible. So, since there's no danger > > that the code will be run through the validator and identify itself as > > "standard", the GPL satisfies 7a. So the GPL is a valid license to > > relicense LPPL code under. > > > > (At least, that's my understanding.)
I'm not sure that i understand Jeff here. the intention of 7a is that if FOO is under LPPL, then a derived work made from FOO honors 5a, ie, it does not claim to the user that it is the original FOO either via 5a1 or 5a2 (5a3 is irrelevant as this is "a general do what you like" for certain files, so for the discussion we can assume that FOO is not of this type) > If that's the intention it should probably be made explicit. I, at > least, would hesitate to rely on that if I wanted to incorporate some > LPPL code into my GPL project. > > After all, maybe someday there will be a GPL implementation of latex > with its own set of files that are interoperable with standard latex. > Perhaps not intended to be used with standard latex, but they could > be. if they can be used in the original domain,ie latex say, then they should not misguide the user of standard latex to believe that he/she is still using the original FOO. if that is ensured then there would be no problem in incorporating the code with your GPL code and other than requiring that, the history of the code being from FOO would have no impact on your code. frank
