On Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 09:11:34AM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote: > On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, Henning Makholm wrote: > > > AFAIU, what the authors of the LPPL draft is trying to express is > > nothing more or less than > > > > 1. You must make your modified package output to the screen a message > > that it isn't Standard LaTeX. > > Would it be possible to use GPL wording for this? The ability NOT to do > this when written for non-interactive use is important.
Uh, better yet, let's use what the GPL's wording *should* be. See the PHPNuke thread. > > 2. If the environment where your modified package is intended to be > > used provides a documented standard way of emitting such messages > > to the screen, you must use that. > > I'll need more thought about this. A requirement to use a specified > facility seems unfree to me at first sniff, but I could (yet again) be > reading too much into it. This seems to be mandating the usage of programmatic interface, which conflicts with my understanding of "freedom to modify". -- G. Branden Robinson | Any man who does not realize that Debian GNU/Linux | he is half an animal is only half a [EMAIL PROTECTED] | man. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Thornton Wilder
pgpeOxp0jhKhG.pgp
Description: PGP signature
