Bug#177401: tetex-extra: Missing fvrb-ex (fancy verbatim example environments) package
On 26.04.04 Frank Küster (frank@kuesterei.ch) wrote:
Hallo Thomas,
> Debian has excluded the fvrb-ex files from it's tetex packages, because
> they didn't contain any license statement. Debian's law people always
> say that anything without a license cannot be distributed, just to be on
> the safe side, legally.
>
> Do you have any license statement for these files (or is there one on
> CTAN which I simply missed)?
>
Just a conversation between the relevant persons. I'm afraid there
was no further action.
H.
--
sigmentation fault
>From hille Sat Aug 16 01:31:05 2003
Received: from pop3.web.de [217.72.192.134]
by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.9.11)
for hille@localhost (single-drop); Sat, 16 Aug 2003 01:31:05 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [130.75.26.7] (helo=leo.dbs.uni-hannover.de)
by mx22.web.de with esmtp (WEB.DE 4.99 #448)
id 19nhZM-0007mZ-00
for hille42@web.de; Fri, 15 Aug 2003 18:36:52 +0200
Received: from gauss.dbs.uni-hannover.de (dsl-082-082-156-124.arcor-ip.net [82.82.156.124])
(authenticated bits=0)
by leo.dbs.uni-hannover.de (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7FGaki3020832
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=FAIL);
Fri, 15 Aug 2003 18:36:46 +0200
Received: from gauss.dbs.uni-hannover.de (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by gauss.dbs.uni-hannover.de (8.12.9/8.12.1) with ESMTP id h7FGaj50017377
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO);
Fri, 15 Aug 2003 18:36:45 +0200
Received: (from te@localhost)
by gauss.dbs.uni-hannover.de (8.12.9/8.12.1/Submit) id h7FGajHF017376;
Fri, 15 Aug 2003 18:36:45 +0200
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 18:36:45 +0200
From: Thomas Esser <te@dbs.uni-hannover.de>
To: Sebastian Rahtz <sebastian.rahtz@computing-services.oxford.ac.uk>,
Denis.Girou@idris.fr
Cc: hille42@web.de
Subject: fancyvrb + fvrb-ex
Message-ID: <20030815163644.GA17274@dbs.uni-hannover.de>
References: <6BE20796-C717-11D7-ABFB-0003930AD8A4@rna.nl> <20030805091059.GL16501@artcom8.artcom-gmbh.de> <Pine.LNX.4.55.0308060045160.1881@hahepc1.hahe> <Pine.LNX.4.55.0308062249390.27766@hahepc1.hahe> <20030806222829.GA2800@lucien.kn-bremen.de> <20030807144114.GD16501@artcom8.artcom-gmbh.de> <20030807165552.GC18583@dbs.uni-hannover.de> <20030810165225.GE13707@herald.ox.ac.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20030810165225.GE13707@herald.ox.ac.uk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
Sender: te@dbs.uni-hannover.de
Status: RO
X-Status: F
Content-Length: 740
Lines: 18
Hi Sebastian + Denis,
I don't think that artistic.txt of fancyvrb classifies as a free software
licanse. Restricting commercial distribution in the following way is
not what our own rules allow:
8. Aggregation of this Package with a commercial distribution is always
permitted provided that the use of this Package is embedded; that
is, when no overt attempt is made to make this Package's interfaces
visible to the end user of the commercial distribution. Such use
shall not be construed as a distribution of this Package.
I have not checked the whole license, but at least this is one point
that is not acceptable (for teTeX and I think for TeX Live, too).
Next question: what is the license of fvrb-ex?
Thomas
>From hille Mon Aug 18 12:11:58 2003
Received: from pop3.web.de [217.72.192.134]
by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.9.11)
for hille@localhost (single-drop); Mon, 18 Aug 2003 12:11:58 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [129.67.1.167] (helo=tx1.oucs.ox.ac.uk)
by mx07.web.de with esmtp (WEB.DE 4.99 #448)
id 19ofgb-0001ia-00
for hille42@web.de; Mon, 18 Aug 2003 10:48:21 +0200
Received: from scan1.oucs.ox.ac.uk ([129.67.1.166] helo=localhost)
by tx1.oucs.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.20)
id 19ofga-0002oO-IM
for hille42@web.de; Mon, 18 Aug 2003 09:48:20 +0100
Received: from rx1.oucs.ox.ac.uk ([129.67.1.165])
by localhost (scan1.oucs.ox.ac.uk [129.67.1.166]) (amavisd-new, port 25)
with ESMTP id 10543-10 for <hille42@web.de>;
Mon, 18 Aug 2003 09:48:20 +0100 (BST)
Received: from smtp1.herald.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.0.247])
by rx1.oucs.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.20)
id 19ofga-0002nf-4E; Mon, 18 Aug 2003 09:48:20 +0100
Received: from spqr-dell.oucs.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.15.45])
by smtp1.herald.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1)
id 19ofga-0001DB-00; Mon, 18 Aug 2003 09:48:20 +0100
Subject: Re: fancyvrb + fvrb-ex
From: Sebastian Rahtz <sebastian.rahtz@computing-services.oxford.ac.uk>
To: Thomas Esser <te@dbs.uni-hannover.de>
Cc: Denis.Girou@idris.fr, hille42@web.de
In-Reply-To: <20030815163644.GA17274@dbs.uni-hannover.de>
References: <6BE20796-C717-11D7-ABFB-0003930AD8A4@rna.nl>
<20030805091059.GL16501@artcom8.artcom-gmbh.de>
<Pine.LNX.4.55.0308060045160.1881@hahepc1.hahe>
<Pine.LNX.4.55.0308062249390.27766@hahepc1.hahe>
<20030806222829.GA2800@lucien.kn-bremen.de>
<20030807144114.GD16501@artcom8.artcom-gmbh.de>
<20030807165552.GC18583@dbs.uni-hannover.de>
<20030810165225.GE13707@herald.ox.ac.uk>
<20030815163644.GA17274@dbs.uni-hannover.de>
Content-Type: text/plain
Message-Id: <1061054167.21593.12.camel@spqr-dell>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.3
Date: 18 Aug 2003 09:47:58 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: sebastian.rahtz@computing-services.oxford.ac.uk
Status: RO
Content-Length: 162
Lines: 6
that's a bit worrying.
I am not sure Denis and I really have the authority
to change the license. If we do, I personally would suggest making it
GPL.
sebastian
>From hille Thu Aug 28 01:31:30 2003
Received: from pop3.web.de [217.72.192.134]
by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.9.11)
for hille@localhost (single-drop); Thu, 28 Aug 2003 01:31:30 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [130.84.8.14] (helo=lumiere.idris.fr)
by mx21.web.de with esmtp (WEB.DE 4.99 #448)
id 19s7fe-0007fS-00
for hille42@web.de; Wed, 27 Aug 2003 23:17:38 +0200
Received: from lin1.idris.fr (root@lin1.idris.fr [130.84.4.160])
by lumiere.idris.fr (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7RLHU1w085527;
Wed, 27 Aug 2003 23:17:30 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from lin1.idris.fr (girou@localhost.idris.fr [127.0.0.1])
by lin1.idris.fr (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7RLHT5q010764;
Wed, 27 Aug 2003 23:17:29 +0200
Received: (from girou@localhost)
by lin1.idris.fr (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h7RLHT2t010761;
Wed, 27 Aug 2003 23:17:29 +0200
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 23:17:29 +0200
Message-Id: <200308272117.h7RLHT2t010761@lin1.idris.fr>
To: Thomas Esser <te@dbs.uni-hannover.de>
Cc: Sebastian Rahtz <sebastian.rahtz@computing-services.oxford.ac.uk>,
hille42@web.de
Subject: Re: fancyvrb + fvrb-ex
In-Reply-To: <20030815163644.GA17274@dbs.uni-hannover.de>
References: <6BE20796-C717-11D7-ABFB-0003930AD8A4@rna.nl>
<20030805091059.GL16501@artcom8.artcom-gmbh.de>
<Pine.LNX.4.55.0308060045160.1881@hahepc1.hahe>
<Pine.LNX.4.55.0308062249390.27766@hahepc1.hahe>
<20030806222829.GA2800@lucien.kn-bremen.de>
<20030807144114.GD16501@artcom8.artcom-gmbh.de>
<20030807165552.GC18583@dbs.uni-hannover.de>
<20030810165225.GE13707@herald.ox.ac.uk>
<20030815163644.GA17274@dbs.uni-hannover.de>
X-Mailer: VM 7.14 under 21.4 (patch 12) "Portable Code" XEmacs Lucid
From: Denis Girou <Denis.Girou@idris.fr>
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.36
Sender: Denis.Girou@idris.fr
Status: RO
Content-Length: 2630
Lines: 64
Thomas.Esser> Hi Sebastian + Denis,
Thomas.Esser> I don't think that artistic.txt of fancyvrb classifies as a free software
Thomas.Esser> licanse. Restricting commercial distribution in the following way is
Thomas.Esser> not what our own rules allow:
Thomas.Esser> 8. Aggregation of this Package with a commercial distribution is always
Thomas.Esser> permitted provided that the use of this Package is embedded; that
Thomas.Esser> is, when no overt attempt is made to make this Package's interfaces
Thomas.Esser> visible to the end user of the commercial distribution. Such use
Thomas.Esser> shall not be construed as a distribution of this Package.
Thomas.Esser> I have not checked the whole license, but at least this is one point
Thomas.Esser> that is not acceptable (for teTeX and I think for TeX Live, too).
Timothy is the only person who can decide what to do with his personal work.
Ask him if you need.
I was not aware of all the discussions which lead to this conclusion and
the choice of this specific license in Spring 2002, but from the traces that
I found in my archives, you explicitely agree at this time.
As far as I know, and at the opposite of what Timothy said, this has been
done only for `fancybox' and `fancyvrb', and not for his other packages.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Timothy Van Zandt <tvz@econ.insead.edu>
To: Thomas Esser <te@informatik.uni-hannover.de>
cc: Denis Girou <Denis.Girou@idris.fr>, cmc@debian.org
Subject: Re: Licensing Question about fancybox.dvi
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 16:15:33 +0100
You wrote:
> Hi Tim,
>
> Claire has involved me into your discussion and I suggest the following:
>
> In fancydoc.sty, I replace the COPYING part by:
>
> %% COPYING:
> %% The files of this package "fancybox" are released under the Artistic
> %% License. A copy of that license is included in the file atristic.txt.
> %% The package consists of the following files:
> %% fancybox.doc
> %% fancybox.sty
> %%
>
> and add the following file (artistic.txt) to the fancydoc package. What
> do you think? I can even upload the files to ctan, if you want...
That sounds good. I will adopt this for all my TeX packages
Thanks.
tim
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas.Esser> Next question: what is the license of fvrb-ex?
When I released it in 1998, such thing that to release everything under
a license was not asking. I will add something for it the day I will release
a new version.
Denis Girou
>From hille Sun Sep 7 20:40:09 2003
Received: from pop3.web.de [217.72.192.134]
by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.9.11)
for hille@localhost (single-drop); Sun, 07 Sep 2003 20:40:09 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [130.75.26.7] (helo=leo.dbs.uni-hannover.de)
by mx17.web.de with esmtp (WEB.DE 4.99 #459)
id 19vxO0-0005Ff-00
for hille42@web.de; Sun, 07 Sep 2003 13:07:16 +0200
Received: from gauss.dbs.uni-hannover.de (dsl-213-023-239-045.arcor-ip.net [213.23.239.45])
(authenticated bits=0)
by leo.dbs.uni-hannover.de (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h87B76i3000920
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=FAIL);
Sun, 7 Sep 2003 13:07:11 +0200
Received: from gauss.dbs.uni-hannover.de (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by gauss.dbs.uni-hannover.de (8.12.9/8.12.1) with ESMTP id h87B75xR031088
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO);
Sun, 7 Sep 2003 13:07:05 +0200
Received: (from te@localhost)
by gauss.dbs.uni-hannover.de (8.12.9/8.12.1/Submit) id h87B74H3031087;
Sun, 7 Sep 2003 13:07:04 +0200
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2003 13:07:04 +0200
From: Thomas Esser <te@dbs.uni-hannover.de>
To: tvz@econ.insead.edu
Cc: Sebastian Rahtz <sebastian.rahtz@computing-services.oxford.ac.uk>,
hille42@web.de, Denis Girou <Denis.Girou@idris.fr>
Subject: Re: fancyvrb + fvrb-ex
Message-ID: <20030907110704.GE30341@dbs.uni-hannover.de>
References: <6BE20796-C717-11D7-ABFB-0003930AD8A4@rna.nl> <20030805091059.GL16501@artcom8.artcom-gmbh.de> <Pine.LNX.4.55.0308060045160.1881@hahepc1.hahe> <Pine.LNX.4.55.0308062249390.27766@hahepc1.hahe> <20030806222829.GA2800@lucien.kn-bremen.de> <20030807144114.GD16501@artcom8.artcom-gmbh.de> <20030807165552.GC18583@dbs.uni-hannover.de> <20030810165225.GE13707@herald.ox.ac.uk> <20030815163644.GA17274@dbs.uni-hannover.de> <200308272117.h7RLHT2t010761@lin1.idris.fr>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200308272117.h7RLHT2t010761@lin1.idris.fr>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
Sender: te@dbs.uni-hannover.de
Status: RO
Content-Length: 4007
Lines: 98
Hi Timothy,
somehow, we came to the license of fancyvrb again and I am sorry to say
that the license is not ok for teTeX and TeX Live, despite the fact,
that I said the contrary in Spring 2002. Argh...
You have chosen the artistic license which is now claassified as "unfree":
"We cannot say that this is a free software license because it is
too vague"
However, the FSF considers both, "The Clarified Artistic License" and
"The Artistic License 2.0" as free software licenses, see
http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html
Would you agree to rerelease your "artistic license" packages under
any of the other two ones? I can even offer to help you submitting the
necessary changes to CTAN, if you want.
Regards,
Thomas
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 11:17:29PM +0200, Denis Girou wrote:
> Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 23:17:29 +0200
> To: Thomas Esser <te@dbs.uni-hannover.de>
> Cc: Sebastian Rahtz <sebastian.rahtz@computing-services.oxford.ac.uk>,
> hille42@web.de
> Subject: Re: fancyvrb + fvrb-ex
> In-Reply-To: <20030815163644.GA17274@dbs.uni-hannover.de>
> X-Mailer: VM 7.14 under 21.4 (patch 12) "Portable Code" XEmacs Lucid
> From: Denis Girou <Denis.Girou@idris.fr>
> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.36
> X-UIDL: 0$D!!9hQ"!*:S"!n]!"!
>
> Thomas.Esser> Hi Sebastian + Denis,
> Thomas.Esser> I don't think that artistic.txt of fancyvrb classifies as a free software
> Thomas.Esser> licanse. Restricting commercial distribution in the following way is
> Thomas.Esser> not what our own rules allow:
>
> Thomas.Esser> 8. Aggregation of this Package with a commercial distribution is always
> Thomas.Esser> permitted provided that the use of this Package is embedded; that
> Thomas.Esser> is, when no overt attempt is made to make this Package's interfaces
> Thomas.Esser> visible to the end user of the commercial distribution. Such use
> Thomas.Esser> shall not be construed as a distribution of this Package.
>
> Thomas.Esser> I have not checked the whole license, but at least this is one point
> Thomas.Esser> that is not acceptable (for teTeX and I think for TeX Live, too).
>
> Timothy is the only person who can decide what to do with his personal work.
> Ask him if you need.
>
> I was not aware of all the discussions which lead to this conclusion and
> the choice of this specific license in Spring 2002, but from the traces that
> I found in my archives, you explicitely agree at this time.
>
> As far as I know, and at the opposite of what Timothy said, this has been
> done only for `fancybox' and `fancyvrb', and not for his other packages.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: Timothy Van Zandt <tvz@econ.insead.edu>
> To: Thomas Esser <te@informatik.uni-hannover.de>
> cc: Denis Girou <Denis.Girou@idris.fr>, cmc@debian.org
> Subject: Re: Licensing Question about fancybox.dvi
> Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 16:15:33 +0100
>
> You wrote:
> > Hi Tim,
> >
> > Claire has involved me into your discussion and I suggest the following:
> >
> > In fancydoc.sty, I replace the COPYING part by:
> >
> > %% COPYING:
> > %% The files of this package "fancybox" are released under the Artistic
> > %% License. A copy of that license is included in the file atristic.txt.
> > %% The package consists of the following files:
> > %% fancybox.doc
> > %% fancybox.sty
> > %%
> >
> > and add the following file (artistic.txt) to the fancydoc package. What
> > do you think? I can even upload the files to ctan, if you want...
>
> That sounds good. I will adopt this for all my TeX packages
> Thanks.
>
> tim
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thomas.Esser> Next question: what is the license of fvrb-ex?
>
> When I released it in 1998, such thing that to release everything under
> a license was not asking. I will add something for it the day I will release
> a new version.
>
> Denis Girou
>From hille Sun Sep 7 20:40:15 2003
Received: from pop3.web.de [217.72.192.134]
by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.9.11)
for hille@localhost (single-drop); Sun, 07 Sep 2003 20:40:15 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [206.46.170.141] (helo=out002.verizon.net)
by mx20.web.de with esmtp (WEB.DE 4.99 #459)
id 19vyIr-00070z-00
for hille42@web.de; Sun, 07 Sep 2003 14:06:01 +0200
Received: from DALAXPFA03 ([141.150.245.212]) by out002.verizon.net
(InterMail vM.5.01.05.33 201-253-122-126-133-20030313) with ESMTP
id <20030907120600.REYX602.out002.verizon.net@DALAXPFA03>;
Sun, 7 Sep 2003 07:06:00 -0500
Message-ID: <001401c37538$aa846e90$6339fea9@DALAXPFA03>
From: "Timothy Van Zandt" <tvz@econ.insead.edu>
To: "Thomas Esser" <te@dbs.uni-hannover.de>
Cc: "Sebastian Rahtz" <sebastian.rahtz@computing-services.oxford.ac.uk>,
<hille42@web.de>,
"Denis Girou" <Denis.Girou@idris.fr>
References: <6BE20796-C717-11D7-ABFB-0003930AD8A4@rna.nl> <20030805091059.GL16501@artcom8.artcom-gmbh.de> <Pine.LNX.4.55.0308060045160.1881@hahepc1.hahe> <Pine.LNX.4.55.0308062249390.27766@hahepc1.hahe> <20030806222829.GA2800@lucien.kn-bremen.de> <20030807144114.GD16501@artcom8.artcom-gmbh.de> <20030807165552.GC18583@dbs.uni-hannover.de> <20030810165225.GE13707@herald.ox.ac.uk> <20030815163644.GA17274@dbs.uni-hannover.de> <200308272117.h7RLHT2t010761@lin1.idris.fr> <20030907110704.GE30341@dbs.uni-hannover.de>
Subject: Re: fancyvrb + fvrb-ex
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2003 08:07:27 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH at out002.verizon.net from [141.150.245.212] at Sun, 7 Sep 2003 07:05:59 -0500
Sender: tvz@econ.insead.edu
Status: RO
Content-Length: 4570
Lines: 135
Sure, I don't mind changing the license to whatever you think appropriate.
tim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Esser" <te@dbs.uni-hannover.de>
To: <tvz@econ.insead.edu>
Cc: "Sebastian Rahtz" <sebastian.rahtz@computing-services.oxford.ac.uk>;
<hille42@web.de>; "Denis Girou" <Denis.Girou@idris.fr>
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 7:07 AM
Subject: Re: fancyvrb + fvrb-ex
> Hi Timothy,
>
> somehow, we came to the license of fancyvrb again and I am sorry to say
> that the license is not ok for teTeX and TeX Live, despite the fact,
> that I said the contrary in Spring 2002. Argh...
>
> You have chosen the artistic license which is now claassified as "unfree":
> "We cannot say that this is a free software license because it is
> too vague"
>
> However, the FSF considers both, "The Clarified Artistic License" and
> "The Artistic License 2.0" as free software licenses, see
> http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html
>
> Would you agree to rerelease your "artistic license" packages under
> any of the other two ones? I can even offer to help you submitting the
> necessary changes to CTAN, if you want.
>
> Regards,
>
> Thomas
>
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 11:17:29PM +0200, Denis Girou wrote:
> > Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 23:17:29 +0200
> > To: Thomas Esser <te@dbs.uni-hannover.de>
> > Cc: Sebastian Rahtz <sebastian.rahtz@computing-services.oxford.ac.uk>,
> > hille42@web.de
> > Subject: Re: fancyvrb + fvrb-ex
> > In-Reply-To: <20030815163644.GA17274@dbs.uni-hannover.de>
> > X-Mailer: VM 7.14 under 21.4 (patch 12) "Portable Code" XEmacs Lucid
> > From: Denis Girou <Denis.Girou@idris.fr>
> > X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.36
> > X-UIDL: 0$D!!9hQ"!*:S"!n]!"!
> >
> > Thomas.Esser> Hi Sebastian + Denis,
> > Thomas.Esser> I don't think that artistic.txt of fancyvrb classifies
as a free software
> > Thomas.Esser> licanse. Restricting commercial distribution in the
following way is
> > Thomas.Esser> not what our own rules allow:
> >
> > Thomas.Esser> 8. Aggregation of this Package with a commercial
distribution is always
> > Thomas.Esser> permitted provided that the use of this Package
is embedded; that
> > Thomas.Esser> is, when no overt attempt is made to make this
Package's interfaces
> > Thomas.Esser> visible to the end user of the commercial
distribution. Such use
> > Thomas.Esser> shall not be construed as a distribution of this
Package.
> >
> > Thomas.Esser> I have not checked the whole license, but at least
this is one point
> > Thomas.Esser> that is not acceptable (for teTeX and I think for TeX
Live, too).
> >
> > Timothy is the only person who can decide what to do with his personal
work.
> > Ask him if you need.
> >
> > I was not aware of all the discussions which lead to this conclusion
and
> > the choice of this specific license in Spring 2002, but from the traces
that
> > I found in my archives, you explicitely agree at this time.
> >
> > As far as I know, and at the opposite of what Timothy said, this has
been
> > done only for `fancybox' and `fancyvrb', and not for his other packages.
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> >
> > From: Timothy Van Zandt <tvz@econ.insead.edu>
> > To: Thomas Esser <te@informatik.uni-hannover.de>
> > cc: Denis Girou <Denis.Girou@idris.fr>, cmc@debian.org
> > Subject: Re: Licensing Question about fancybox.dvi
> > Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 16:15:33 +0100
> >
> > You wrote:
> > > Hi Tim,
> > >
> > > Claire has involved me into your discussion and I suggest the
following:
> > >
> > > In fancydoc.sty, I replace the COPYING part by:
> > >
> > > %% COPYING:
> > > %% The files of this package "fancybox" are released under the
Artistic
> > > %% License. A copy of that license is included in the file
atristic.txt.
> > > %% The package consists of the following files:
> > > %% fancybox.doc
> > > %% fancybox.sty
> > > %%
> > >
> > > and add the following file (artistic.txt) to the fancydoc package.
What
> > > do you think? I can even upload the files to ctan, if you want...
> >
> > That sounds good. I will adopt this for all my TeX packages
> > Thanks.
> >
> > tim
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> >
> > Thomas.Esser> Next question: what is the license of fvrb-ex?
> >
> > When I released it in 1998, such thing that to release everything
under
> > a license was not asking. I will add something for it the day I will
release
> > a new version.
> >
> > Denis Girou
>
Reply to: