Re: [Gnewsense-dev] Another tex package (texlive-base) to hack

[Karl Goetz]

On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 21:37:21 +0200
Sam Geeraerts <address@hidden> wrote:

> Benedikt Ahrens schreef:
> > 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > I finally received an answer to my request to the AMS. Their

Thanks for taking this on.

> > 
> > I won't be available during the next two weeks. The answer came from

Starting when - are you going to see these replies? :)

> > (******************************)
> > 
> > Dear Benedikt,
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> > We considered adopting the LPPL, but decided that the ban against
> > distributed modified files under the same name was critical to our
> > business interests.  This wording, which was suggested by Karl Berry
> > to address similar licensing concerns for TeXLive, will be used for
> > all future releases.
> 
> "... Modifications, and ..." sounds a bit like a EULA and rather 
> unnecessary. It probably falls outside copyright law, which makes it 
> irrelevant. (Either that, or it makes the whole license invalid, 
> although I doubt that.) As far as I can tell it's a free license. And 
> Karl Berry is a good reference, I think.

If AMS isn't playing Chinese whispers. (see below)

> > 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.
> 
> AMS probably own all the code, so I think this is legally sound and
> good enough for our purposes. It would be good to check with the FSF 
> licensing lab, though.

I'd agree with this, especially to confirm Karl B. said what AMS claim
he said.

> If these things are in order, then we need to check if an updated 
> package can just replace the current one. Meaning:
> 
> 1) Will there be a deb package available (soon)?

If its a simple matter of inserting a new copyright file, it could
happen a day or two after we get said file.

> 2) Will it have different dependencies from the current one?

If we need to re-package it yes, if its just a copyright notice, all
should be fine.

> 3) Will it be so different that it could break building current other 
> packages (e.g. doxygen, as mentioned in the Debian bug report)?

That would be un-fun.

> > I hope that this is, if not completely satisfactory, at least
> > workable.  If you have any further questions or concerns, please let
> > me know and I'll do my best to address them.

> >> [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=477060
> >> [2] http://www.gnewsense.org
> >> [3] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=477060#20
> 
> Thanks for contacting them. If you feel like also informing Debian
> about this, I'm sure they'd appreciate it.

Definitely. If Benedikt has gone on his break I'll send the info on to
Debian and see what -legal thinks (and open new bug(s) if needed).
kk

-- 
Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS)
Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer
http://www.kgoetz.id.au
No, I won't join your social networking group

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature