> Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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".
On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, Walter Landry wrote: > 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. Hmm. I'm not sure it's actually less restrictive. Preventing another piece of software (the base format) from making a claim is a lot harder than making a positive claim yourself. > > 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. Agreed. They should be allowed to use whatever facility they like. That wasn't the basis of my objection. >> section 5b > How about changing "user" to "end user"? Would that make it clear enough? How about "copyright identification strings"? I suppose "end user identification strings" works too. -- Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.dagon.net/>
