[tex-live] license violation in tetex-texmf-3.0 fixed

Robin Fairbairns Robin.Fairbairns at cl.cam.ac.uk
Sat May 27 12:27:05 CEST 2006

> As David pointed out, you are not allowed by GPL to add any further
> restrictions. It is definitly unclear what license one has (and is
> allowed to) use for a derived work. I think this problem is also at the
> heart of RMS's comment on debian-legal where Thomas asked about this
> license. It is ok for a free software license to carry a renaming
> clause. But you cannot do this by adding restrictions on top of GPL. IMO
> this makes csplain etc non-free.

in essence, that's what the catalogue now says: "other" => nonfree
(unless you have other information, and i don't believe we have in
this case).

[note that we're no longer maintaining the ctan nonfree tree -- it's
just too much hassle (not least because of hassle from the people who
don't believe in the concept of free/nonfree).  things like
ghostscript, and like cstex would be, part free and part nonfree, are
also a problem.]

perhaps csplain should just be dropped from texlive ... like ukhyphen
was.  (i was cross about that, but i understood the reasoning.)

(all those tetex lists snipped, since it's no longer a tetex question;
texlive kept in because texlive is still an active distribution.)


More information about the tex-live mailing list