Re: LPPL again
I think you should file a bug report, against texmf and against
any other such packages.
Denis Barbier <email@example.com> wrote:
> 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.