Re: multicol.sty to become DFSG-free
Henning Makholm writes:
> It seems DFSG free to me, as I found it at
i should hope so since that was the intention (and the license is the result
of some disucssion between Richard Stallman and me)
> The commercial use clause has been replaced with a 'moral obligation'
> that seems carefully phrased so as not to be legally binding, and even
> leaves the precise amount of money ( >= 0 ) that is asked up to the
just for the record this was always the case. ie even as the old statement
said it required a license in certain case it made clear that the fee if any
could be 0 and was to be determined by the user. in other words it was always
meant as a moral obligation and now it is very explicitly expressed as such.
> I haven't been able to establish whether the new license clause has
> propagated to the teTeX upstream yet. (In fact, the teTeX I can find
> at ftp.dante.de is several release numbers BEHIND the release number
> of the current debs. I'm lost).
i'm sure that it will propagate very soon as this is a change that goes
together with the 98/12/01 release of LaTeX which just made it to the streets.
so the moment tetex upgrades to the current ltx release multicol should
automatically find its way into it as the whole tools part is considered to be
part of the required core of a LaTeX distribution
> I'm cc:ing to the tetex maintainer, because I doubt how much effort we
> can expect from our anonymous informer. (Hmm, it suddenly occurs to me
> that the informer may be anonymous because he's cracked ftp.dante.de
> and changed the license himself. Better cc: Frank Mittelbach too. I'm
> probably making a fool of myself now, but just in case...)
as you might have guessed by now (unless this mail is hacked as well :-) all