[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [gNewSense-users] unclear licence of AMSLatex (fwd)

From: Benedikt Ahrens
Subject: Re: [gNewSense-users] unclear licence of AMSLatex (fwd)
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:28:54 +0200

Completely right, you would have to modify the source code of each single 
You can compare it to C header files, I think. 

For the soft links I don't know. The license doesn't say that another file may 
not have the same name as this file. 
Anyway, this would not be a very easy-to-use solution.

Let's see the critical part again (excerpt from the license proposal):
"Modifications, and distribution of modified versions, are permitted, but only 
if the resulting file is renamed."

In my opinion, telling the user how he should name the modified file on his 
machine is way too restictive. Perhaps we could have it changed to:
"Modifications, and distribution of modified versions, are permitted. Modified 
files must be distributed with a file name that is different from that of the 
original file distributed by the AMS"
(sorry, this is bad english)

This assures that only the AMS files are distributed as being from AMS and 
would also answer Karl's question about derivations of derivations.


> This seems like a pretty big deal. Renaming an application (like 
> Firefox) does not have much impact, but renaming a TeX package which 
> seems to be pretty standard would require users to modify their TeX 
> sources, wouldn't it? I suppose soft links with the original names 
> aren't allowed either?
> (btw, sorry for the delay: mail problems)

GRATIS für alle GMX-Mitglieder: Die maxdome Movie-FLAT!
Jetzt freischalten unter

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]