Bug#477152: Licensing info in computational-complexity LaTeX class
- To: Michael Nüsken <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Bug#477152: Licensing info in computational-complexity LaTeX class
- From: Manuel Pégourié-Gonnard <email@example.com>
- Date: Sat, 03 May 2008 17:26:13 +0200
- Message-id: <481C8415.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: Manuel Pégourié-Gonnard <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: <4811ED2D.email@example.com>
- References: <20080421124959.14552.11248.reportbug@josh-mobile> <20080421141940.GG6688@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> <480CDD3C.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <480DD74A.firstname.lastname@example.org> <480DEAA3.email@example.com> <480DECB9.firstname.lastname@example.org> <4811ED2D.email@example.com>
and sorry for the late answer.
Michael Nüsken a écrit :
> I just uploaded v2.09 to CTAN @ DANTE and expect it to be online
> within a few days. Please, let me know whether it's ok now.
Hmm, I'm afraid there is still a few problems. The ins file states that:
%% In particular, NO PERMISSION is granted to modify the contents of this
%% file since it contains the legal notices that are placed in the files
%% it generates.
This implies two problems:
1. It contradicts the LPPL, whose point 10a explicitly allows to distribute a
derived work under a different license, as long as it it respect the strong
points of the LPPL.
2. Read literally, it means that you can't modify the file at all (even the
\generate lines), which is obviously not what is intended anyway.
I think the best is to get rid of that statement, since the files are
generally distributed unmodified, and if they are, this becomes a derived work
which can have its own licence.
Another thing I failed to notice last time, is that the journals.bib file has
no license statement at all. It should have one, or at least be listed as part
of the work in cc.dtx.
PS: would you please be so kind as to keep firstname.lastname@example.org in the Cc list?