> The "fine-ness" I was referring to was that, for works that add the > "LPPL 1.2 or any later version" language to the license, we aren't > required by law to hunt them down.
Law's the law but I just wanted to stress that this is one of (perhaps the main) constraint that Frank and I have. Knowing that legally we can change the licence any way we want doesn't really help. Would you be pleased if you'd licenced your code under GPL version 1 or any later version and then FSF released a GPL v 1001 that was LPPL (or the licence from Microsoft word)? I suspect not. By agreeing to licence under "any later version" terms an author is showing a certain amount of faith in the distributor of the licence. Faith's more important than the law here... > This sounds very close to what I posted in the "try 2" thread. If you > don't like what's there, then I'd be very interested in what you don't > like, as the delta in intent between what you wrote and what I wrote > seems very small. Yes just catching up (day job, you know:-), I may respond to that thread later, (or I may go to bed, we'll see..) > I don't know if you've delved down to the API call suggestions yet, but > that's one way to provide that. I've read the messages, implications haven't sunk in yet, so I want to wait a bit before commenting on the details. David _____________________________________________________________________ This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
