On Sat, 12 Apr 2003, Jeff Licquia wrote: > - 5.a.2. That's the Clause of Contention, so read it carefully. I > seem to have at least some consensus on it, judging from the feedback so > far; its provenance can be seen in this message and the follow-ups:
I'm close on this one. "does not identify itself as unmodified in any way" is harder for me to understand than "identifies itself as modified". Does "This is LaTeX-format, unmodified" followed a few lines later by "this is foo, modified by someguy" qualify? As written, I'd think this infringes. If the initial LaTeX-format must be modified in order to make certain modifications to an LPPL-licensed module, it's hard for me to see this as a free license. > - 5b. Mark, you were nervous about this, but I don't see an > alternative or clarification in the discussion. Are you satisfied, or > is there still some work to do? I think my objection to 5b boils down to the fact that it doesn't distinguish between API strings and user-copyright strings. As long as the package contains no must-modify strings which are part of the container's API, I don't object. I'd strongly prefer this were clarified in the license. -- Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.dagon.net/>
