> -----Original Message----- > From: Frank Mittelbach [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 10 April 2003 19:22 > To: Jeff Licquia > Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org > Subject: Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL) > > > Jeff Licquia writes: > > > Let me try to improve on Branden's version, phrased a little > differently > > so it becomes a new 5.a.2: > > > > "The entire Derived Work, including the Base Format, does not identify > > itself as the original, unmodified Work to the user in any way when > > run." > > > > This would be accompanied by a section under "WHETHER AND HOW TO > > DISTRIBUTE WORKS UNDER THIS LICENSE" talking about ways to ensure that > > derived works can adhere to 5.a.2. > > > > I'd really like to hear Frank or David's thoughts on this new wording, > > since we're moving into some different territory here. What do you > > think? > > as I said in the other mail, I think that would be something I > think would do > what is necessary and we could give suggestions elsewhere how to fullfil > 5.a.2. Guess i need to think a little bit more about it to be sure, but it > seems likely. Would be fine if it does. > > frank
I agree with Frank that this looks like something that could form the basis of an agreed wording. David
