[tex-live] DTL (DVI Text Language): licence?

[Robin Fairbairns]

George N. White III <gnwiii at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 7:09 PM, Karl Berry <karl at freefriends.org> wrote:
> 
> >    So somebody could respond to an email rather than reuploading to CTAN,
> >    for example?
> >
> > Exactly.  I usually offer to update it on CTAN myself if they are
> > agreeable but don't want to take the time themselves.  This has happened
> > several times with contributors who haven't been active for years.
> >
> >    packages for which there is no information in the package
> >
> > That is catalogue-license noinfo.  Those are the ones to concentrate on.
> >
> >    vs. packages which might contain the information but where this
> >    isn't entered into the CTAN catalogue metadata.
> >
> > Those are catalogue-license unknown.  Don't worry about those for the
> > time being.
> 
> What determines which catalog entries get "catalogue-license" lines?
> I can see how the 00texlive entries don't need them since they come under
> the overall license, although I'm sure some lawyer would have a different
> notion.  Many packages don't appear to provide the line:
> 
>  $ egrep '^name|^catalogue-license'
> /opt/tex/texlive/svn/Master/tlpkg/texlive.tlpdb |head -20
> name 00texlive-installation.config
> name 00texlive.config
> name 00texlive.core
> name 00texlive.installer
> name 12many
> catalogue-license lppl
> name ANUfinalexam
> catalogue-license other-free
> name AkkTeX
> catalogue-license lppl
> name AroBend
> name Asana-Math
> name ESIEEcv
> name FAQ-en
> name GuIT
> name HA-prosper
> name IEEEconf
> catalogue-license lppl
> name IEEEtran
> catalogue-license lppl

the catalogue licence comes from (surprise!) the catalogue.

this provides two prerequisites:
  that a catalogue entry exists (that's true of all the above except
    possibly guit)
  that a connection between catalogue entry and package has been made

r