Re: Licenses of tetex and its parts

[Atsuhito Kohda <kohda@pm.tokushima-u.ac.jp>]

From: frank@kuesterei.ch (Frank Küster)
Subject: Licenses of tetex and its parts
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:40:40 +0100

> Hi all,
> 
> a couple of days ago we had bug number - err, don't know, and right now
> I'm offline. The one that argued that licenses of individual parts of
> tetex should be documented in our copyright file. 

Yes, #218105 

> Anyway, I started looking at the licenses of tetex's parts. Very soon I
> ran into problems...
> 
> First of all, from where is the copyright information in
> tetex-{base,bin}-$version/debian/copyright taken? It states that tetex
> is under GPL, but LICENSE.texmf and LICENSE.src, respectively, in the
> upstream source have a different text. Is the wording of our copyright
> file just outdated, or have I missed something?

I don't know from where comes the current copyright but
I know at least that LICENSE.texmf and LICENSE.src was 
introduced in upstream teTeX at 2.0 (or 2.0.2) by Thomas
(i.e. a fairy recent files).

Please see (yes, I know you are offline at present ;)

http://www.mail-archive.com/tetex-pretest%40informatik.uni-hannover.de/msg00739.html

So, err, I proposed to update copyright in 

From: Atsuhito Kohda <kohda@pm.tokushima-u.ac.jp>
Subject: Bug#218105: tetex-base: woeful copyright file
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 23:08:36 +0900 (JST)

> Only a starting point.
> 
> Again note I didn't intend to fix #218105 completely but 
> only to show you a starting point (better or more updated
> than the present one, at least).

I suspect that the term GPL comes from the fact that web2c 
is under GPL.

Regards,			2003-11-27(Thu)

-- 
 Debian Developer & Debian JP Developer - much more I18N of Debian
 Atsuhito Kohda <kohda@debian.org>
 Department of Math., Univ. of Tokushima