Hi debian-legal folks, Guess no one saw this or cared to comment the first time I sent it. Could people let me know their opinions on the license below and its suitability for inclusion in main (or non-free, if not acceptable for main)?
Thanks! On 04/15/2005 09:17 AM, Kevin B. McCarty wrote: > Hi debian-legal, > > I have ITP'ed xymtex ( http://bugs.debian.org/304714 ). This collection > of LaTeX macros has the following license: > > %% Copying of this file is authorized only if either > %% > %% (1) you make absolutely no changes to your copy, including name and > %% directory name > %% (2) if you do make changes, > %% (a) you name it something other than the names included in the > %% ``chemist'' directory and > %% (b) you acknowledge the original name. > %% This restriction ensures that all standard styles are identical. > %% > %% ======================================= > %% > %% This file is a modification of latex.tex (LaTeX2.09) and of latex.ltx > %% (a LaTeX2e), the reused parts of which is subject to > %% Copyright 1994 the LaTeX3 project and the individual authors (For further > %% copyright information see the file legal.txt of the LaTeX2e standard > %% distribution, and any other copyright indicated in this file.) > > [end license] > > Assuming that by "copying", upstream really means "public > redistribution" (something which I have already emailed him to clarify), > is this acceptable for main? Can "Public redistribution is authorized > if..." be considered a grant of permission? If so, my understanding is > that the restrictions in option (2) are permissible under the DFSG's > "Integrity of the author's source code", correct? > > Thanks, -- Kevin B. McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Physics Department WWW: http://www.princeton.edu/~kmccarty/ Princeton University GPG public key ID: 4F83C751 Princeton, NJ 08544 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
