Richard Kaszeta <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> I do have a question about the new teTeX packages:
> I don't the the copyright information include is correct (the
> tetex-base I just downloaded from 'bo' had the GPL in there). While
> this is true for most of the stuff, I am certain it is not the case
> for the entire package (although if this is not the case it is the
> fault of the upstream maintainer, Thomas Esser)
> Example: The 'tools' package from the LaTeX 2e team contains style
> files with the the line
> %% You are allowed to distribute this file if and only if
> %% it is distributed with the corresponding source files in
> %% the `tools' bundle.
> Which are not included. And almost all of the .sty files in teTeX
> just say "Copyright 19xx John Doe", with no mention of GPL (which GPL
> software should contain the 'standard' GPL boilerplate, and indeed
> must if inherited from other GPL code).
> In other words, I heavily doubt the copyright information with teTeX
> is correct, and it's contents almost certainly (for example, the
> 'tools' package) are in violation of the author's distribution requirements.
In patchlevel 8 of the upstream tetex, there is an additional package
'texmf-src' which includes the needed files. From the README:
>The texmf-src archive is not needed to build or use the
>teTeX system. That archive contains some sources for stuff that
>is installed in the texmf area and the only reason why the archive
>exists is to comply some packages' copyrights.
I will build a Debian package for it and hope that all the copyrights
are then satisfied.
Christoph Martin, Uni-Mainz, Germany
- From: Richard Kaszeta <email@example.com>