msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca wrote:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2011, Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote:
clearly they are -- but in terms of actual requirements. Since
you are only "discouraged from" and not "prohibited from"
making changes, I believe that a court of law would find that
there is no actual inconsistency in practice.
Do note that the ucharclasses package isn't covered by the LPPL at all.
The author is free to put whatever license he wants on it, and whether
the license he chose is consistent with the LPPL isn't particularly
relevant. We might as well as whether it's consistent with the GNU GPL
or the Argentinian Constitution.
The issue that Vafa raised was as follows :
No, the license of the package in not LPPL.
> In fact, it is non-free and that is why it
> is not included in TeXLive. The README in "License" section says:
You
may freely use this package, but you are discouraged from
modifying this package and then redistributing it. Instead,
please contact me (ideally on the XeTeX mailing list) and
we can discuss the changes you wish to make. If they
benefit everyone, they will be worked in as a new version.
and the point that I was making is that "discouraged from"
is not the same as "are not allowed to" and therefore should
not be taken as an reason to exclude the package from TeX Live.
Whether the package licence conflicts with the LPPL, or with the
GNU PL, or with the Constitution of Argentina, is not really
the point at issue.
Philip Taylor
--------------------------------------------------
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
