Robin.Fairbairns at cl.cam.ac.uk
Mon Oct 5 17:13:42 CEST 2009
Dr. Clea F. Rees <cfrees at imapmail.org> wrote:
> CTAN describes pdfcprot as LPPL, any version, but the terms described
> in the Readme don't support this as far as I can tell.
the author describes it as lppl, too. it's one of those ones that evade
the standard usage of licensing by doing something rather odd.
he includes an old version of the lppl text, and declares that you must
behave according to that.
the standard thing is to state a version of the licence, refer to its
location on the web, and declare that later versions are acceptable.
i _think_ his list of restrictions in the readme is in accordance with
the version of lppl that he specifies.
of course, losing the package would be no great loss (since it's
comprehensively obsoleted by microtype). but, sadly, i don't think one
can, on licence grounds alone.
More information about the tex-live