Christian Geisert wrote:
And IMHO (and IANAL etc.) this is the crux as the Apache Software
License does not forbid renamming the files.
Yes, that's hairsplitting and comletly against common sense
but remember we're talking about legal issues her.

I meant the following LPPL condition:
  3. You must not distribute the modified file with the filename of the
     original file.
Because the FOP files end in .xml rather than .tex, we conform
at least technically. The idea was probably to avoid the confusion
of having several "hyphde.tex" files floating around, vaguely
similar to the prohibition of using "Apache" for products derived
from ASF code.

A binary distribution is another matter because of the compiled
*.hyph files, which are obviously derived. But again it should
Hu? Above you said the XML files are also derived. What's the
difference between source and binary distribution?
The XML files (at least the file I examined) had a pointer
to the original file, as required by LPPL 8(B). The binaries
obviously don't have it, so we have to put this elsewhere
preferably in the place where it's mentioned that certain
compiled hyph files derived from LPPL'd files.

I'm not sure whether our hyph "compilation" consitutes a
mechanical transformation, which causes the result to be
"another representation of the Original Work" so that it
inherits the copyright and the license of the source, or
whether the serialized class is a "Derived Work", where
we could claim copyright and set license conditions.

The LPPL'd hyphenation have to be checked thouroughly because
of LPPL 1. Condition 2 does not apply. Condition 7 is fulfilled
by keeping the file under LPPL. 3 is probably trivially ok as
mentioned above. 4, 5 and 6 can be easily checked and corrected,
and 8(B) should be easy too. I can look into it this weekend.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to