On 20.02.2003 23:58:48 J.Pietschmann wrote: > Victor Mote wrote: > > I don't think the LPPL works at all for us. The preamble says: "You may > > distribute a complete, unmodified copy of The Program. Distribution of only > > part of The Program is not allowed." > > Well, as I already wrote in another post, it's not really > clear what "The Program" is in the context of the hyphenation > files. The case I examined had *only* the hyphenation file > in the directory the URL pointed to, with no visible affilations > to any other files from either the context nor the file itself > (did not mention "..is part of <The Program>" or something. > I concluded "The Program" is in this case the hyphenation file > itself.
I agree. > Also I think the preamble refers to *unmodified* files. Derived > works seems not to be covered there. > > > The important part for us is that the LPPL is not viral, with > the exception of the filename prohibition. In particular it > allows distributing derived work (read: binary FOP distributions) > without the code. Yes, but see point 4, for example. That will be difficult for the compiled hyphenation patterns. > BTW we should track down and delete all binary distribution > containing the compiled hyph file from the three GPL sources. > The source distributions are not an immediate risk and can be > kept. Who has access to the distro repository? Good thought! Jeremias Maerki --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
