J.H.M. Dassen wrote: > Does this matter? We have more restrictive copyrights. > > E.g. /usr/lib/texmf/tex/generic/pstricks/colortab.tex: > %% (1) You may freely distribute unchanged copies of the file. Please > %% include the documentation when you do so. > %% (2) You may modify a renamed copy of the file, but only for personal > %% use or use within an organization. That's too restrictive -- it should be in non-free. > /usr/lib/texmf/tex/plain/misc/btxmac.tex: > % You may copy this file provided: that it's accompanied by the > % "BibTeXing" document, whose text is contained in the file `btxdoc.tex'; > % that any documentation you write for these macros also gives a > % reference for "BibTeXing"; and that either you make absolutely no > % changes to your copy, or if you do make changes, (1) you name the file > % something other than `btxmac.tex' and you remove all occurrences of > % `btxmac.tex' from the file, (2) you put, somewhere in the first twenty > % lines of the file, your name, along with an electronic address at which > % others who might use the file may reach you, and (3) you remove each > % occurrence of Oren's name and electronic address from this file. These > % restrictions help ensure that all standard versions of these macros are > % identical, and that Oren doesn't get deluged with inappropriate e-mail. I wish people didn't write stuff like this into licenses. Simple requests like this don't have to be codified into legal language. Still, I could take the code and stick it into one of my own programs - so it fits my definition of "free software". > /usr/lib/texmf/doc/latex/base/legal.txt.gz > %The distribution of changed versions of certain files included in the > %LaTeX system, and the reuse of code from those files, are allowed > %under the following restrictions: > % > % * It is allowed only if the legal notice in the file does not > % expressly forbid it. > % > % See below, under "Conditions on individual files", for a complete > % list of those classes of files which are exceptions. > % > % * You rename the file before you make any changes to it, unless the > % file explicitly says that renaming is not required. Any such changed > % files should be distributed under conditions that ensure that those > % files, and any files derived from them, will never be redistributed > % under the names used by the original files in the LaTeX distribution. > % > % > % * You change the `identification string' to clearly indicate that the > % file is not part of the standard system. > % > % This `identification string' is in the optional argument of > % whichever of the following three commands appears in the file: > % \ProvidesClass, \ProvidesFile, \ProvidesPackage. > % > % * You change the `error report address' so that we do not get error > % reports for files not maintained by us. > % > % * You acknowledge the source and authorship of the original version > % in the modified file. > % > % * You also distribute the unmodified version of the file. This one is pretty restrictive (and a bit foolish), but I think it still lets me use the code - although I'd have to bloat my source package a bit to include modified and unmodified source. Yuck. > Thus, it looks like we allow "redistribution of modified versions is allowed > only if the name is changed" cases. I think it's OK, but I think we should try to discourage the use of this if at all possible. Let's strive for "simple" licenses if at all possible. Debian has great potential as providing a huge base of source code ideal for people with a "cut-and-paste" programming style (like me) - but it sort of loses it's appeal if there are too many conditions to be taken into account everytime I want to do that. Cheers, - Jim
Attachment:
pgpwG2BzPNP24.pgp
Description: PGP signature