CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: Brett Smith <brett> 10/10/18 16:20:10
Modified files:
licenses : license-list.html
Log message:
Add clarifying paragraph to LPPL explanation, mostly from RMS.
Even though it is possible to modify LPPL-covered works in such a way
that they can no longer be considered free, that does not mean that
the original license should be considered nonfree too.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/licenses/license-list.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.273&r2=1.274
Patches:
Index: license-list.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/licenses/license-list.html,v
retrieving revision 1.273
retrieving revision 1.274
diff -u -b -r1.273 -r1.274
--- license-list.html 9 Aug 2010 15:40:25 -0000 1.273
+++ license-list.html 18 Oct 2010 16:20:00 -0000 1.274
@@ -842,6 +842,16 @@
requirement is merely annoying; without the facility, the same
requirement would be a serious obstacle, and we would have to conclude
it makes the program non-free.</p>
+
+<p>This condition may cause trouble with some major modifications.
+For example, if you wanted to port an LPPL-covered work to another
+system that lacked a similar a remapping facility, but still required
+users to request this file by name, you would need to implement a
+remapping facility too to keep this software free. That would be a
+nuisance, but the fact that a license would make code nonfree if
+transplanted into a very different context does not make it nonfree in
+the original context.</p>
+
<p>The LPPL says that some files, in certain versions of LaTeX, may have
additional restrictions, which could render them non-free. For this
reason, it may take some careful checking to produce a version of
@@ -1790,7 +1800,7 @@
<p>
Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
- $Date: 2010/08/09 15:40:25 $
+ $Date: 2010/10/18 16:20:00 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
