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

Re: How to deal with teTeX's and texlive's RC licensing bugs

Hi all!

On Mit, 27 Sep 2006, Steve Langasek wrote:
> - If a component of a package lists a non-free license, but is distributed
>   as part of a larger work that includes a blanket license statement,
>   resulting in ambiguity about which license the component is distributed
>   under, the bug is not RC with the condition that the maintainer is
>   expected to seek a clarification.

This would mean that a priori we can assume that these bugs are not RC
for TeX live, as this is a blanket license statement of following the
DFSG in inclusion of packages (plus GFDL documents which have already
been removed from the packages).

For those problems surfacing we are contacting upstream (=texlive dev
list) and up-upstream (original authors) normally.

Best wishes


Dr. Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at>                    Università di Siena
Debian Developer <preining@debian.org>                         Debian TeX Group
gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094      fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76  A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
Descriptive of the waggling movement of a person's hands when shaking
water from them or warming up for a piece of workshop theatre.
			--- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff

Reply to: