Re: How to deal with teTeX's and texlive's RC licensing bugs
Hilmar Preusse <hille42@web.de> wrote:
> On 28.09.06 Frank Küster (frank@debian.org) wrote:
>> Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> >> | dinbrief: lppl 1.1+, but with additional restrictions which are non-free
>> >
>> > Strange, I have in my dinbrief version in texlive:
>> > %% It may be distributed under the terms of the LaTeX Project Public
>> > %% License (LPPL), as described in lppl.txt in the base LaTeX distribution.
>> > %% Either version 1.1 or, at your option, any later version.
>>
>> Same here. I can't figure out where I found the additional
>> restrictions. I've removed it from the wiki.
>>
> Maybe it slipped in from older times.
That's possible, although kind of unlikely - I don't have any pre-2.0.2
files here, I hope. I rather suspect that I checked two packages in at
a time and mixed up names.
> It was non-free in pre-teTeX
> 2.0.1 and was freed before 2.0.2. What does the CTAN catalogue
> actually say?
It says LPPL.
Well, I guess we can forget about this. There's no other package noted
as okay in debian/tpm/ that I likely checked at the same time (I always
went by alphabet, except for the PSNFSS packages), so I don't think
there's anything we can or should do.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
Reply to: