References: <20170731.162337.688577912214660894.wl@gnu.org>
            <A7E10047-826F-42DA-917E-483286207F0B@wspr.io>
            <1b15b290-d536-a8b2-89a4-a946f51a931e@latex-project.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Message-ID:  <20170801143441.GA2463536@phare.normalesup.org>
Date:         Tue, 1 Aug 2017 16:34:41 +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:         Arthur Reutenauer <arthur.reutenauer@NORMALESUP.ORG>
Subject: Re: \usepackage problem with LaTeX 3
To:           LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
In-Reply-To:  <1b15b290-d536-a8b2-89a4-a946f51a931e@latex-project.org>
Precedence: list
Envelope-To: <rainer.schoepf@GMX.NET>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Status: R

On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 03:25:24PM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> Am 31.07.17 um 16:45 schrieb Will Robertson:
>> In fact, requiring a change to the filename is no longer written
>> explicitly into the LPPL. (Long story, don’t ever ask Frank how many
>> emails it involved.)
> 
> but you didn't listen carefully, did you? :-)
> 
> so let me repeat my usual sermon on that matter ...
> 
> [snip]
> 
> So no, it is not recommended at all (at least not by me) even though it
> is within the limits of the license.

  Hence Will is correct in stating that the LPPL does not require
changing the filename, right?  The “most important thing” in his words
(“lowest common denominator” in yours), is that the new file identify
itself as a modified version.  The recommendation that follows is a
different thing.

	Best,

		Arthur