Re: latex2html license: "A Letter to Leeds University", round 2
I've been meaning to reply sooner, but parsing tex seems to have been
too much effort for the free time available. :-/
On 2004-01-14 11:53:08 +0000 Roland Stigge <stigge@antcom.de> wrote:
Subject: The license of LaTeX2HTML
I think "Re: " is more normal for British letters and placed below the
salutation.
The reason I am writing to you is that there is some uncertainty
about the
ownership of the copyright that vests in LaTeX2HTML. Mr Drakos has
signalled a
I'd replace "that vests in" with "of"
willingness to change the licensing terms for LaTeX2HTML but wonders
if he
needs your permission or support to do so due to the fact that he was
employed
by the University at the time of creating the software. As a
precaution, we
would like your written agreement to change the license terms for
LaTeX2HTML
from its current license to the GNU General Public License (GPL)
(Verbatim copies of these two licenses are enclosed.).
It may be good to offer them the alternative to disclaim it. "As a
precaution, we would like you to disclaim any copyright interest in
LaTeX2HTML, or give written agreement..."
The current license for LaTeX2HTML was unquestionably written as a
Free
Software / Open Source license, however one aspect of the license
causes the
Debian project difficulties.
This seems just plain wrong. If it prevents any fee being charged,
isn't that neither free software nor open source?
* Debian is not the only project distributing LaTeX2HTML. Other
distributions of the popular GNU/Linux system like RedHat and SuSE and
different BSD derivates also use LaTeX2HTML and probably have the
same
problem.
"...and will notice it in the future."?
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ slef@jabber.at
Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Reply to: