> Fact is that the LPPL is no approved license for Sourceforge,
> Savannah (which want's GPL-compatible licenses, cf.
> nor berlios (which want's osi approved licenses).
> I know your rationale for the license, but the fact that it's not
> approved by theses repositories makes life at least more
> complicated than needed.
I'm happy if somebody takes up the torch and gets (a variant of) LPPL approved
by any such body. We tried in 2000 and the results where so frustrating and
(in my personal opinion) unprofessional that I'm not willing to get personally
involved into it again, at least not initially.
LPPL tries to find a compromise between the particular need of a user
community that uses certain products and the wish of programming people that
want absolute freedom without worrying about the consequences.
as long as such bodies are dominated by people that are only interested in
guarding the freedom of the programmer but are not prepared to even discuss
potentially conflicting needs I don't see much chance --- but would be happy
if somebody proves me wrong.
 at least that was the way it looked in 2000
as an aside: which life is made unnecessarily complicated? I'm not aware of a
single software project under LPPL which would really gain anything from
living on something like Sourceforge. I'm not saying that it wouldn't be good
if LPPL is approved, on the contrary, but i don't see Sourceforge and the like
as a real practical argument.