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

Question about freeness of XyMTeX license [2nd try]

Hi debian-legal folks,

Guess no one saw this or cared to comment the first time I sent it.
Could people let me know their opinions on the license below and its
suitability for inclusion in main (or non-free, if not acceptable for main)?


On 04/15/2005 09:17 AM, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
> Hi debian-legal,
> I have ITP'ed xymtex ( http://bugs.debian.org/304714 ).  This collection
> of LaTeX macros has the following license:
> %% Copying of this file is authorized only if either
> %%
> %%  (1) you make absolutely no changes to your copy, including name and
> %%      directory name
> %%  (2) if you do make changes,
> %%      (a) you name it something other than the names included in the
> %%          ``chemist'' directory and
> %%      (b) you acknowledge the original name.
> %%  This restriction ensures that all standard styles are identical.
> %%
> %% =======================================
> %%
> %% This file is a modification of latex.tex (LaTeX2.09) and of latex.ltx
> %% (a LaTeX2e), the reused parts of which is subject to
> %% Copyright 1994 the LaTeX3 project and the individual authors (For further
> %% copyright information see the file legal.txt of the LaTeX2e standard
> %% distribution, and any other copyright indicated in this file.)
> [end license]
> Assuming that by "copying", upstream really means "public
> redistribution" (something which I have already emailed him to clarify),
> is this acceptable for main?  Can "Public redistribution is authorized
> if..." be considered a grant of permission?  If so, my understanding is
> that the restrictions in option (2) are permissible under the DFSG's
> "Integrity of the author's source code", correct?
> Thanks,

Kevin B. McCarty <kmccarty@princeton.edu>   Physics Department
WWW: http://www.princeton.edu/~kmccarty/    Princeton University
GPG public key ID: 4F83C751                 Princeton, NJ 08544

Reply to: