Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Walter Landry writes in reply to Mark Rafn: > > > > - 5b. Mark, you were nervous about this, but I don't see an > > > > alternative or clarification in the discussion. Are you satisfied, or > > > > is there still some work to do? > > > > > > I think my objection to 5b boils down to the fact that it doesn't > > > distinguish between API strings and user-copyright strings. As long as > > > the package contains no must-modify strings which are part of the > > > container's API, I don't object. I'd strongly prefer this were clarified > > > in the license. > > > > How about changing "user" to "end user"? Would that make it clear enough? > > sorry? there is no "user" in 5b)
Right. Sorry. Not thinking straight. > alternative suggestion (off my head) for the whole thing: > > > 5. If you are not the Current Maintainer of The Work, you may modify > your copy of The Work, thus creating a Derived Work based on The Work, > as long as the following conditions are met: > > a. You must ensure that each modified file of the Derived Work is > clearly distinguished from the original file. This must be > achieved by causing each such modified file to carry prominent > notices detailing the nature of the changes, and by ensuring that > at least one of the following additional conditions is met: > > 1. The modified file is distributed with a different > Filename than the original file. > > 2. The Derived Work clearly identifies itself as a modified > version of the original Work to the user when run. Does this mean that if I license "grep" under this license, it always spits out a "modified by foo" blurb? I think you need to word it more like GPL 2c. Unfortunately, LaTeX is not really an interactive command, so the exact wording of GPL 2c wouldn't work for you. I can't think of a good wording right now. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
