Re: Non-DFSG TeXLive stuff
"Kevin B. McCarty" <kmccarty@Princeton.EDU> wrote:
> Norbert Preining wrote:
>> To my reading that thread didn't end in a conclusion that it is not
>> Furthermore, IMHO, if it would be *not* acceptable, then we would
>> have to remove all, I repeat *ALL* LPPL licensed packages.
>> I guess this is something we don't want to have in Debian.
> Yes, I figured that the LPPL could probably squeak by debian-legal
> (otherwise I wouldn't have ITP'ed XyMTeX), but I was more concerned
> about the somewhat contradictory-seeming reply from upstream. Possibly
> he has misinterpreted the meaning of the LPPL? But when there is a
> conflict between the written license in the package and the author's
> expressly stated wishes, it seems safest to assume that the latter are
I'm not sure, but it seems to me as if the lppl allows derived works to
be licensed more restrictively, even with proprietary, no-sell, or
similar licenses. Therefore, it might be that it is not a
misinterpretation of the LPPL by XymTeX's author, but instead a
>> This [upstream's reply] seems strange, I guess there was a
>> misunderstanding, because the right to distribute the file unchanged
>> is given in the file itself. Hard to say since we don't see the mail
>> exchange with Shinsaku Fujita.
> I attach our entire email exchange (with some extraneous headers
> removed). I emailed once, to which he didn't reply; sent a follow-up
> email about a week later; and he finally gave the brief reply I quoted
> earlier. Apologies for the top-quoting in this exchange.
> I wasn't quite sure what to make of his reply so I didn't follow up
> further. Probably TeX Live or someone else distributing XyMTeX should
> do so, though.
Indeed; perhaps telling him that the Software will be taken off TeXLive
and moved to the new nonfree branch on CTAN will make him rethink his
Norbert, Karl for sure has more of a name than you and I - do you think
he has time to contact him?
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich