Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)

2003-04-10 Thread Jeff Licquia
On Wed, 2003-04-09 at 17:09, Branden Robinson wrote: On Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 11:39:44AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote: Right, but as I just posted a little bit ago, a restriction to a problem domain is just one type of specificity. See the GPL, section 2c, for another, one that I think is

Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)

2003-04-10 Thread Jeff Licquia
On Wed, 2003-04-09 at 18:56, Mark Rafn wrote: [Branden] Why not say something like: If you distribute modified copies of the work, you must ensure that its modified status is clearly, unambiguously, and obviously communicated to users of the work.? IMO, this is non-free without the

Assoagenti news n°7

2003-04-10 Thread tinelli
Title: assoagenti Anno-III- n° 7

modification notification requirements, and Who To Write Your License For

2003-04-10 Thread Branden Robinson
On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 04:56:28PM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote: Uh, better yet, let's use what the GPL's wording *should* be. See the PHPNuke thread. I'd agree, except that I don't think there was any consensus (or even suggestion, but my memory is imperfect) on what such a wording should be.

Re: modification notification requirements, and Who To Write Your License For

2003-04-10 Thread David Turner
On Thu, 2003-04-10 at 12:18, Branden Robinson wrote: On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 04:56:28PM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote: Uh, better yet, let's use what the GPL's wording *should* be. See the PHPNuke thread. I'd agree, except that I don't think there was any consensus (or even suggestion,

Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)

2003-04-10 Thread Henning Makholm
Scripsit Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] Let me try to improve on Branden's version, phrased a little differently so it becomes a new 5.a.2: The entire Derived Work, including the Base Format, does not identify itself as the original, unmodified Work to the user in any way when run. Perhaps

Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)

2003-04-10 Thread Frank Mittelbach
Branden Robinson writes: Mandating technologies in license documents really rubs me the wrong way. I'm not too happy about it either, but ... The nice(?) thing about legal language is that you can use broad terms to say what you mean, and as long as your meaning is clear and

Re: Revised LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL)

2003-04-10 Thread Frank Mittelbach
Jeff Licquia writes: Let me try to improve on Branden's version, phrased a little differently so it becomes a new 5.a.2: The entire Derived Work, including the Base Format, does not identify itself as the original, unmodified Work to the user in any way when run. This would be

Re: modification notification requirements, and Who To Write Your License For

2003-04-10 Thread Walter Landry
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, please, write licenses for the audience at (3). Isn't the GPL essentially a counterexample? It was written with legal counsel, and many people have criticised it for it complexity. It has also been an effective license that doesn't have any