Bug#477060: news concerning the amslatex license

[Frank Küster <frank@debian.org>]

Benedikt Ahrens <benedikt.ahrens@gmx.net> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I recently sent a message to the AMS in order to get updated news about
> the relicensing issue. Perhaps you are interested in their answer.

Many thanks for taking this up!

> The good news is that as we release new versions of our packages, we
> have been updating the license to the following:
>
>     % Unlimited copying and redistribution of this file are permitted as
>     % long as this file is not modified.  Modifications, and distribution
>     % of modified versions, are permitted, but only if the resulting file
>     % is renamed.

Personally, I don't like the wording "file is renamed", because it is
ambiguous - in particular in a kpathsea-based TeX system where the path
is crucial for finding a file, and where an "aliases" file is
supported.  But I think Debian can accept this.  

> 2) The core AMS document classes (amsart.cls, amsbook.cls, and
>    amsproc.cls) -- there was a minor maintenance release last month.

Fine.

>    Some of the related files may still have the old license.

That probably means they didn't manage to contact all involved persons?
Well, Debian will probably be able to accept this for a while.

> 3) AMSrefs
>
> The bad news is that we still have not had occasion to update the core
> amsmath package and related files.  We hope to release an upgrade of
> amsmath at the end of this year or early next year, but I'm not in a
> position to make any hard promises.

So that means that again it won't be in TL 2009. If they manage to
release in time for Debian squeeze, I'll try to update this stuff
independently of TL upsstream.  Otherwise, well, it's a hard question if
we can include those file in stable with a non-free license *again*.

> What we could do, if it would help, is add a 00LICENSE file to the
> current distribution that contains the new license, an explanation of
> the situation, and a statement that this supersedes the one in the
> individual files.  I suspect that strictly speaking this is legally
> dicey, but it would certainly make our intentions clear.

I think Debian has usually accepted such statements, even as the final
action.  Not if they say "we intend to contact all copyright holders",
but if the say "we have confirmed with all copyright holders"
(explicitly or implicitly).

Regards, Frank
-- 
Dr. Frank Küster
Debian Developer (TeXLive)
VCD Aschaffenburg-Miltenberg, ADFC Miltenberg
B90/Grüne KV Miltenberg