Robin.Fairbairns at cl.cam.ac.uk
Mon Nov 17 08:43:50 CET 2008
Karl Berry <karl at freefriends.org> wrote:
> with "no modify" packages ... karl's general feeling. last i asked, was
> that with no other restriction, such packages are good enough for tl.
> Really? I don't recall the context in which we were discussing that,
> but "no modify" is definitely nonfree. Such packages should not be
> marked other-free.
sorry ... i've been sickening for another dvt (in a lot of pain), and i
just wasn't thinking. the discussion that was being blurred in my mind
was about packages which are "modify only with file name change" (which
used to be a provision of the lppl, clea.)
> In the case of grnumalt, it is marked other-nonfree (which is good), and
> I already removed it from TL some time ago, for precisely this reason.
> Clea, your understanding and work to date are just fine (and greatly
> appreciated), no need to change course.
i must sort out access for clea to the catalogue repository -- in
particular, this would sort the issue of what things are still in tl and
what aren't. each catalogue has an entry <texlive location='filename'/>
if and only if it _is_ in tex live. (modulo a day or so's delay, or
more if i'm actually in hospital.)
More information about the tex-live