Re: LPPL again
On Tue, 1 Jun 1999, Raul Miller wrote:
> Denis Barbier <barbier@imacs.polytechnique.fr> wrote:
> > forgive my stupidity, i don't understand how a LaTeX distribution (say
> > teTex) does not violate the LPPL.
>
> I don't know much about LaTeX, but the tetex stuff I have installed
> on my system is GPLed.
teTeX is a ready-to-use LaTeX system. I understand that Thomas Esser
distributes his work under GPL, but LaTeX files are covered by LPPL
(e.g. /usr/lib/texmf/tex/latex/base/latex.ltx)
> If we're talking about the same tetex then the LPPL has no
> jurisdiction there.. [if we're talking about the same tetex,
> and LPPL tries to restrict its distribution then the LPPLed
> code can't be distributed with the tetex code, which is rather
> ironic.]
If you look into /usr/doc/texmf/latex/base/legal.txt.gz you read that
all files listed in manifest.txt must be part of this distribution. If
you look into this file, you see that all source files are listed. Then
i deduce that teTeX can't be shipped without these sources.
Am i wrong?
Denis
Reply to: