[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: Sam Geeraerts
Subject: Re: [gNewSense-users] Re: unclear licence of AMSLatex (fwd)
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:26:34 +0100
User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20090824)

Benedikt Ahrens schreef:

the AMS has decided to publish amslatex under LPPL. see david jones'
message on the bottom.

this concerns future releases only. is this ok for gns? can we keep the
current package even if it isn't covered legally by this license?

Thanks for following up on this.

Do they say which version of LPPL they're going to use? Both 1.2 and 1.3a are free software licenses, but according to the FSF license list [1] 1.2 can have additional restrictions that make some files non-free.

Would they agree to retroactively add the same license to (recent) earlier versions (including the one in gNS 2.x), so that those versions become dual-licensed? Even just a short public statement that's not (necessarily) legally binding would make me much more comfortable about keeping the package in gNS.

As for changing names of modified files: I think Debian has some infrastructure to handle all that and all TeX packages have been treated as if they were under LPPL, so that won't be a problem. The only change we should have to make is to refer to the public statement.


reply via email to

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