Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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".
It is just a little less restrictive. Instead of requiring people to make a positive action to show that something is modified, they only have to prevent it from showing that it isn't. > 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. That is how I read it as well. Requiring modified files to use the standard facility is too onerous. > > - 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. How about changing "user" to "end user"? Would that make it clear enough? Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
