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

Re: license of cstex / cslatex

"Thomas Esser" <te@dbs.uni-hannover.de> wrote in message 20060525174346.GA6130@dbs.uni-hannover.de">news:20060525174346.GA6130@dbs.uni-hannover.de...

the teTeX package contains files which use the following license:


   This macro package (csplain.ini, il2code.tex, csfonts.tex, hyphen.lan,
   plaina4.tex) is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
   it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
   the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at
   your option) any later version with the following appendix:

   You can do any changes in this software for your own usage. However,
   you cannot distribute the changed software under the same name
   "csplain".  Only the current administrator of CSTeX can do official
   changes to csplain.

   This macro package is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
   but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
   General Public License for more details.

   You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
   along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
   Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307

I had done modifications of three files of that package and distributed
the changed files using the original filename. The author told me that
this violates his license. Actually, this only happened, because when
reading his license the first time, I stopped as soon as I saw a reference
to the GPL (and did not read the appendix).

   - is it valid to refer to GPL and add such severe restrictions in
     an appendix?

It is legal AFAIK (IANAL), but is relly poor form.
Also it makes the work GPL-incompatible, which kindof
defeats the point of using the GPL.

   - is this a "free software" license in the FSF definition?
Probably, but name changing clauses are a pain.

   - is this license free enough to allow an inclusion of the software
     into debian?

I believe it is DFSG-free, but it is not a great licence.

Reply to: