Bug#65961: tetex-base/tetex-nonfree: serious license problems
From: Adrian
Subject: Bug#65961:
Date: Tue,
> tetex-nonfree contains only the following packages (besides seminar)):
>
> koma: licence changed and is DFSG-free now
If so, then koma should be moved to tetex-base or tetex-extra?
> > I don't know if there's a newer version of stmaryrd.sty around, but
> > the current one says:
> >...
>
> The copyright was changed to:
>
> % This document is copyright \copyright~1991--1994 Alan Jeffrey.%
> % The St Mary's Road fonts are copyright \copyright~1991--1994 Jeremy
> % Gibbons and Alan Jeffrey. All rights are reserved.
> % The moral right of the authors has been asserted.
> %
> % This package may be distributed under the terms of the LaTeX Project
> Public
> % License, as described in lppl.txt in the base LaTeX distribution.
> % Either version 1.0 or, at your option, any later version.
I verified the above but it also stated in stmaryrd.sty that
%% This generated file may be distributed as long as the
%% original source files, as listed above, are part of the
%% same distribution. (The sources need not necessarily be
%% in the same archive or directory.)
however, AFAIK, stmaryrd.dtx is not included in any tetex-* packages.
It is included in the original teTeX-texmfsrc.
At least we should clarify these two points.
BTW, as I have not enough time to check please tell me the
situation a bit.
The original source of tetex-base is teTeX-texmf?
The original source of tetex-bin is teTeX-src?
The original source of tetex-src is (part of?) teTeX-texmfsrc?
I think that it might make the situation much clear if we
take teTeX-texmfsrc as the original source of tetex-base.
(Of course splitting it into DFSG-free parts and non-free parts)
But this might cause mutual dependency at build time between
tetex-bin and tetex-base (is this true?).
How do you think on this?
Thanks in advance, 2000.6.23
--
Debian JP Developer - much more I18N of Debian
Atsuhito Kohda <kohda@pm.tokushima-u.ac.jp>
Department of Math., Tokushima Univ.
Reply to: