Re: fancyvrb + fvrb-ex
On 07.09.03 Timothy Van Zandt (tvz@econ.insead.edu) wrote:
Hi all,
This is a follow up on a very old discussion.
The problem was, that fancyvrb is under a license, which could be
problematic in some cases. Thomas took out point 8 of the Artistic
license as an example, which could be problematic for teTeX and
TeX-Live.
Further there was the question, what license fvrb-ex (in subdir
contrib/) has. There is no license statement at all.
Tim said he don't mind rereleasing under another license, but there
was no further action. Anybody willing to do the rerelease/upload?
Kind regards,
Hilmar
> 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
--
http://hilmarpreusse.forum-rheinland.de/
Reply to: