I'm German, so I have neither the linguistic nor the judicial
background. Alas, I can add my mustard (German Saying):
Discouraged is not the same as prohibited. So the license does not
prohibit redistributing it in a modified version. But in most countries
this doesn't matter, as copyright laws prohibit these actions.
Besides, I also wouldn't do, if it was allowed. Who knows, what methods
the author employs in order to enforce the “discouragement”? ;-)
ciao
Toscho
Am 23.10.2011 12:48, schrieb Vafa Khalighi:
I can not comment on the difference between "discouraged" and
"prohibited" since I am Persian not British but certainly if I am
"discouraged from modifying a package", I feel that "I am prohibited
from modifying that package".
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 9:36 PM, Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd)
<p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk <mailto:p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk>> wrote:
Vafa Khalighi wrote:
Yes, firstly because it does not make the software free any more
(not just free in price but also free in modification, etc) and
secondly LPPL never discourage you from modifying the software.
I don't think you are understanding my question, Vafa : I am
not querying whether they are inconsistent in spirit -- which
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.
Philip Taylor
------------------------------__--------------------
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/__listinfo/xetex
<http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex>
--------------------------------------------------
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
--------------------------------------------------
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
