[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Draft new DFSG - r1.4

On Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 02:28:31PM +0100, Richard Braakman wrote:
[of TeX]
> If this is incorrect, can anyone post the complete license here for
> our consideration?

No, I don't think so.  teTeX contains multitudes of packages, many
with differing licenses.  It would take ages to dig out all of them to
here.  In fact, we still find non-free files in tetex-base even though
non-free files were put into a separate package half a year ago.
Check the BTS, if you want to know the details.

TeX proper and its companions (Metafont etc) have an obscure license,
which I analyzed in an earlier message in the "Draft new DFSG" thread,
posted here yesterday evening.

The core LaTeX has a license saying, in effect, that modification is
allowed only if the result is renamed.  Many LaTeX packages have a
similar license.

The framework of Web2C, which is used by teTeX, (ie. kpathsea and
friends) are covered by the GNU (L)GPL.

%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % gaia@iki.fi % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%

	  About to generate a new signature, please wait...

Reply to: