Re: Draft new DFSG - r1.4
On Fri, Nov 27, 1998 at 02:28:31PM +0100, Richard Braakman wrote:
> 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
The framework of Web2C, which is used by teTeX, (ie. kpathsea and
friends) are covered by the GNU (L)GPL.
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % email@example.com % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%
About to generate a new signature, please wait...