MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <4.3.1.2.20050905135545.01c90b88@cits1.stanford.edu>
Message-ID:  <17183.22614.580386.762486@istrati.mittelbach-online.de>
Date:         Wed, 7 Sep 2005 23:15:02 +0200
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
From: Frank Mittelbach <frank.mittelbach@LATEX-PROJECT.ORG>
Subject: Re: Licenses based on the LPPL: a request for clarification.
To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
In-Reply-To:  <4.3.1.2.20050905135545.01c90b88@cits1.stanford.edu>
Precedence: list
Status: R

Hi Brooks,

 > I have a couple of questions regarding licenses based on the LPPL, and I'm 
 > hoping that the LaTeX3 Project could provide me with a clarification of the 
 > terms of the license.

well i can try ...

 > First, the top of the LPPL (version 1.3) states:
 > 
 > >Everyone is allowed to distribute verbatim copies of this license 
 > >document, but modification of it is not allowed.
 > 
 > However, lines 312-315 of the same version state:
 > 
 > >You may use the text of this license as a model for your own license, but 
 > >your license should not refer to the LPPL or otherwise give the impression 
 > >that your work is distributed under the LPPL.
 > 
 > Am I correct in understanding that the latter partly overrides the former, 
 > permitting me to create a new license that uses much of the text of the 
 > LPPL (and thus would appear to be a "modification of it"), so long as these 
 > restrictions are met?

The intention is to avoid that variations of the license appear to be "the
LPPL" or "coming from the "LaTeX Project team" if in fact they are not. I
don't think that the statement "use the text as a model" is in conflict of the
earlier statement, especially not as annotated. I don't mind if some parts are
listed even verbatim as long as it is done in a way that the result cannot be
mistaken for the LPPL


 > Second, if I were to create such a license, what would be the appropriate 
 > way to acknowledge that it is largely based on material on which the LaTeX3 
 > Project holds copyright, while also meeting the restrictions that it should 
 > not refer to the LPPL?  Is a line "Portions Copyright 1999 2002-03 LaTeX3 
 > Project; used with permission" at the top of the new license appropriate 
 > and sufficient?

I wouldn't mind a reference (at the top or at the bottom or whereevever :-)
that ackn's that your license hase been modeled after the LPPL and if you lift
larger parts verbatim a copyright statement of the kind indicated would be
fine and acceptable.

however i would be interested in learning what you consider in need of change
for your license needs as I was trying to make the LPPL suitable "non-LaTeX"
related work as well if so desired --- simply because I think that the
concepts behind LPPL do apply for certain other situations as well.

we do have already too many licenses (which often enough have only have minor
differences and only sometimes actually represent different concepts) so i
would be interested to her or see what you require since I think it is better
to have a few licenes representing unique approaches rather than having many
that nobody bothers to read or has at least a rough understanding what they
represent

best
frank