[tex-live] Packages with non-free catalogue-license

Ulrich Mueller ulm at gentoo.org
Thu Oct 4 22:10:47 CEST 2012


>>>>> On Thu, 04 Oct 2012, Robin Fairbairns wrote:

>> We've noticed that several packages that are included with TeX Live
>> 2012 are labelled with a non-free catalogue-license in texlive.tlpdb.
>> 
>> noinfo:
>> amsmath-it

> the readme states that the package is to be licensed as the original
> amsmath

>> ascii-chart

> clear statement of lppl in the .tex file

>> borceux

> README offers a statement somewhat like pd (i.e., do what you like)

>> breakcites

> README offers a statement somewhat like pd (i.e., do what you like)

>> cherokee

> likewise, in cherokee.mf,.sty

>> eiad

> Clea Rees obained permission to insert a pd statement in the .mf files

> ... and so on.

Fine, and I'm glad to see that my conclusions in the downstream bug
were more or less correct:
<https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436698#c6>

> i've spent ages working with debian and redhat people on all these
> licence issues.

> not all the licence statements that we document in the catalogue are
> what i would call "perfectly characterised", but the details are all
> there in the publicly-accessible svn copy (that has no author
> details, for confidentiality reasons).

Could the catalogue-license info for these packages (in texlive.tlpdb)
then be updated please? Packages shouldn't be marked as "noinfo",
"nosource", or "other-nonfree" if their licenses have been evaluated
and they have been found to be free.

> if you want to reject things that we have worked over and accepted
> among ourselves, that's your look-out. however, if you've nothing
> better than a list ...
> ... of things with no statement of why you imagine our analysis is
> wrong, then i, for one, won't pay any further attention.

There's no need for being so hostile. Our intention isn't to reject
anything. But when we find that something is labelled e.g.
"other-nonfree", then of course we need to look into it.

It would be nice if the catalogue info would be up to date, in order
to avoid such duplication of work at the distro level.

Ulrich


More information about the tex-live mailing list