[tex-live] License of patch.doc

[David Kastrup]

Robin Fairbairns <Robin.Fairbairns at cl.cam.ac.uk> writes:

> David Kastrup <dak at gnu.org> wrote:
>
>> Before getting into the fangs of Frank and Robin:
>
> grrrr.

Oh, and Karl, of course.

>> I just noticed that patch.doc is licensed non-free.  As I am rather
>> lazy, I would welcome it if somebody took the pains of changing the
>> license to standard current LPPL terms (probably 1.3 or later IIRC).
>> And it may make sense to change the contact address in it to
>> dak at gnu.org.  Maybe people would be more likely to find it if it got
>> moved to source/generic/kastrup: I think the main purpose of it
>> nowadays might be educational, and then grouping by the author's
>> idiosyncratic TeX style might make it somewhat easier to find rather
>> than having it in one humongous directory.
>
> i've updated the file as requested (re-installed twice since i forgot
> about the email address first time).

Thanks.  Appreciated.

> we do have a directory macros/generic/kastrup (containing binhex); i
> could move it there, if that would help.  personally, i would prefer to
> perpetuate the general rule in the latex tree, with one package per
> directory, so putting it in macros/generic/patch or m/g/kastrup-patch
>
> wdyt?

For single-shot single-file generic code a subdirectory of the same name
does not really buy anything with regard to ordering things.  In this
case, I would think the macros/generic/kastrup placement to be an
improvement.  Contrast that to macros/latex/bigfoot where the files
constitute a coherent bundle.

If this causes complications with regard to docstripping things, I can
see whether I can provide somewhat more of an infrastructure here.

> i note the catalogue wittily listed the file as lppl anyway.  :-}

I actually did not remember at all, or I would likely have done
something about it earlier.

-- 
David Kastrup