[texhax] shear transform
Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd)
P.Taylor at Rhul.Ac.Uk
Thu May 19 09:41:18 CEST 2011
Karl Berry wrote:
> this is just my common sense interpretation.
> Ok, there's no point in going on with this thread.
I respectfully disagree. I asked a follow-up question to which there
has yet been no reply, and I think that all concerned would benefit
from a clarification of the issue. I repeat it below, together with
subsidiary questions that may need to be addressed before the situation
is fully clear :
> [I]s there a requirement that the other licences be made
> explicit ? If ]XeTeX] is linked to Libkpathsea (or whatever), does the
> licence for Libkpathsea explicitly require that its licence be
> referred to in the licence for any piece of software that uses it ?
The subsidiary questions are : once XeTeX has been linked into
Libkpathsea, do they then form a monolithic whole ? In other
words, if I receive from Jonathan XeTeX.exe, does this .exe
include Libkpathsea, or does it simply make reference to it,
which reference is satisfied at run time ? Because if XeTeX.exe
/contains /Libkpathsea, then I would expect the licence for
Libkpathsea (and any other analogous components) to have to
be made explicit; whereas if XeTeX.exe is just a stub, which binds
at run-time to Libkpathsea, then I can see no need for the latter's
licence to be made explicit because Jonathan is not distributing
a copy of Libkpathsea, merely a reference to it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the texhax