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

Re: LPPL again

On Tue, 1 Jun 1999, Raul Miller wrote:

> My current take:
> legal.txt requires that all files in manifest.txt be included in
> the distribution (in debian terms: not necessarily in the same
> package but on the same media, with an exception for floppies).

I understand ; afaik there is no tetex-src package.

> If we're not doing that then we shouldn't be distributting LPPL'd
> code.
> > Now, let's have a look at a recent texmf tree distributed with teTeX
> > teTeX-texmf-0.9-990517.tar.gz
> > prompt> find . -name manifest.txt
> > ./doc/latex/base/manifest.txt
> > ./doc/latex/mfnfss/manifest.txt
> > ./doc/latex/tools/manifest.txt
> > ./doc/latex/cyrillic/manifest.txt
> Um, not exactly.
> legal.txt indicates only one manifest.txt -- not all files named
> manifest.txt.  Furthermore, it indicates that a proper manifest.txt
> will list legal.txt...  so I think the pieces are seperable to
> that degree.

I was not clear enough. The copyright you read is used by other pieces
of teTeX.  The ``find'' was to find which packages are covered by the
LPPL. A better command is
  find . -name manifest\* -o -name MANIFEST

But babel (/usr/lib/texmf/tex/generic/babel/babel.sty) is also covered
by this license whereas teTeX is shipped without the manifest.txt
asociated with it.
In all cases, only source files are listed in this files.


Reply to: