On Sun, 23 Oct 2011, Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote: > clearly they are -- but in terms of actual requirements. Since > you are only "discouraged from" and not "prohibited from" > making changes, I believe that a court of law would find that > there is no actual inconsistency in practice.
Do note that the ucharclasses package isn't covered by the LPPL at all. The author is free to put whatever license he wants on it, and whether the license he chose is consistent with the LPPL isn't particularly relevant. We might as well as whether it's consistent with the GNU GPL or the Argentinian Constitution. -- Matthew Skala msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca People before principles. http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/ -------------------------------------------------- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
