On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 17:03, Richard Braakman wrote: > Frank Mittelbach pointed out that the LPPL itself is not transitive, > so the "code from an LPPL'ed work" can be placed under a license that > says "do anything you want, but don't rename it back to Foo". I hadn't > thought of that, and I think it clears up this objection. > (I don't know if the current LPPL-1.3 draft works this way, but I > understood that it was the intent.)
I think the posted draft of the LPPL is approaching uselessness at this stage of the discussion, since the LaTeX people have agreed in principle to the idea of changing the license to meet a set of agreed-upon goals (assuming that we can, in fact, construct such a set). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
