Re: [Gnewsense-dev] Re: [bug #28597] TeX is missing

[Karl Goetz]

On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 22:15:30 -0500
Richard Stallman <address@hidden> wrote:

>     - I do not agree that ams(la)tex's current license is nonfree.
> To me, that needs a perverse misinterpretation of the author's
> intent.  The ams license text is the same as Knuth's, written many
> years ago, before the current quagmire of license interpretations:
> you can redistributed modified versions, but have to change the
> filename.
> 
> Indeed, that is acceptable in a free license.
> 
> Can someone please show me the entire license?  Maybe I can confirm it
> is ok.
> 
>     - the chance of AMS using their scarce available time to
> re-release older versions with dual-licensing to placate Debian is
> essentially nil, IMHO.
> 
> What time do you think it requires?
> All they have to do is give their approval.

I can make a bzr commit, push and on the next archive run it will
(hopefully) be reincluded. Is it ok for me to cite this thread as the
commit message on the package reinclusion (and bug report closures?)
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