[tex-live] license question

[Stephan Hennig]

David Kastrup schrieb:
> Jonathan Kew <jonathan at jfkew.plus.com> writes:
>> On 10 Sep 2008, at 7:33 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
>>> Stephan Hennig <mailing_list at arcor.de> writes:
>>>
>>>> For users of our work it's the same situation as if there were no
>>>> sources.  Anything wrong with that?
>>>
>>> Yes.  Since the GPL mandates distributing the sources (the "preferred
>>> form of the work for making modifications to it"), nobody can meet
>>> the conditions.  As a result, the patterns are not redistributable
>>> legally.
>>
>> I don't follow this.
> 
> I have to admit I have been mislead by his use of the word "source".
> The GPL has quite a clear definition of "source code" with regard to the
> scope of the covered material.  I agree that it does not match what
> Stephan describes with "But in fact, there is source for our work that
> cannot be distributed." and "For users of our work it's the same
> situation as if there were no sources."

Thanks for pointing that out!  My bad terminology is clearly an
expression of the confusion on my side.

A clear distinction has to be made between a source (a work) we refer to
while preparing our list and the /source code/ of a work.  As I
understand it now, since our list is a work in source code form and has
no corresponding source code other than itself, GPL doesn't put any
restriction on distribution of the word list as a standalone work.
Distribution can be restricted by the license of the original list, but
since that's not the case all is fine.

Best regards,
Stephan Hennig