Bug#477060: license proposal for current release

[Frank Küster <frank@debian.org>]

Hi,

thanks for keeping us informed. 

Benedikt.AHRENS@unice.fr wrote:

> I'll forward all the comments collected to the AMS team.

Thanks for that.

> Here's a copy of the draft license that I propose to append to the
> current AMS-LaTeX distributions.  Do you have any questions or
> comments before I release it?
>
>     The AMS is in the process of restating and updating the license on all
>     of its distributed files in order to bring the license into line with
>     current standards of "free" software licenses.  Since it will take
>     some time to update all individual files, we're distributing this file
>     now to clarify the license on currently-distributed files.
>
>     The following license replaces any conflicting statement found inside
>     any files distributed by the American Mathematical Society as part of
>     the AMS-LaTeX distribution, including the amscls and amsmath
>     components, and related files.
>
>         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.
>
>     This includes -- but is not necessarily limited to -- the
>     following files:
[... long list of .dtx and .ins as well as unpacked files snipped]

That sounds good. One question remains: Are all files currently marked
as "Copyright by AMS"?  Some at least have; but if not all, then the AMS
should either claim in their 00LICENSE file to have the copyright or to
have the permission of the copyright holders.

> Incidentally, a number of the associated files (especially various
> documentation files and release notes) do not have any included
> license statement.  Is that something that we need to address or is it
> understood that they are are covered by the same license in associated
> files?  

If the documentation is generated from a dtx file, but has no license
statement in the readable text, I don't see a need. However, any other
documentation (e.g. READMEs) should have a copyright statement unless
the content is trivial.

I'm not sure whether release notes are copyrightable content at all; or
rather whether *these* are.  

> I suspect that the safest thing for us to do in the future is
> include a 00LICENSE.txt file with wording similar to the above in all
> of our distributions.

Yes, ideally covering docs, too.

Regards, Frank


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