- the current LPPL allows to change the internal identification as an alternative to renaming the file, and
Indeed, this is the main difference between the "Knuth" license and the current LPPL, as I know you know. - it does not permit to distribute changed versions, even when renamed, Well, once you have a changed version, further copying of that unchanged version could perhaps be construed as permitted under clause (1). - this text doesn't even allow to copy amsclass.dtx to amsclass.dtx.bak Hmm. Perhaps the name change could be interpreted as part of "if you do make changes", ie, one possible change is changing the name. Imagine cp amsclass.dtx{,.bak}, changing one byte, then reverting the one byte ... I am straining to find a way to interpret the clauses non-literally because I agree with you that the wording here is not ideal. However, amslatex is not the only issue. plain.tex and other basic TeX system files written by DEK (and others) are under a similar license. Furthermore, tex.web and mf.web are under an even more "restrictive" license. I do not believe it is in the overall public interest to ask DEK to spend one second contemplating these things instead of working on the Art of Computer Programming. I am also virtually certain (barbara might chime in) that it would be a waste of time, as he has made his wishes clear many, many times and would not be inclined to change anything. The fact that a literal interpretation of his "license" texts is not perfectly congruent with his wishes is an unfortunate fact of life. Needless to say, TeX Live is not ever going to consider TeX as "nonfree" :). karl -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]