On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, Jeff Licquia 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". > > Negative is better. Positive, to me, means "you must write this code, > here" as opposed to "whatever you write, don't pretend to be foo".
I guess I'm just misreading it, as you and Walter both seem to think the negative wording is free-er. It still seems to me you're requiring that something be removed from the base format, if it makes the claim that the LPPL work is original. > With the language in 5.a.2, is 5b now irrelevant? Changed files are > already required not to identify themselves to the user as unchanged, > which would seem to cover the case where "identification strings" were > displayed to the user. > > We might want to keep 5b in a lesser form: requiring notice in the file > itself of changes, but without any requirement to display such a thing. > This would be similar to the GPL's clause 2a. > > What do we think of this? My objection to 5b has been pretty well addressed, so I won't claim that it makes it non-free. Fewer requirements are better, though :) -- Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.dagon.net/>
