On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 12:49:14PM +0200, Norbert Preining wrote: > On Don, 28 Sep 2006, Steve Langasek wrote: > > A statement that "the work must be DFSG-compliant to be accepted" is not the > > same thing as saying "this tarball is distributed under license <foo>". > > It's the latter that introduces ambiguity.
> To cite from TeX live's "COPYING CONDITIONS": > ------ > To the best of our knowledge, all software in this distribution is > freely redistributable (libre, that is, not necessarily gratis), within > the Free Software Foundation's definition and Debian Free Software > Guidelines. If you find any non-free files included, please contact us > (references given below). > ------- > What does this mean? It's not a license statement, that's for sure. It's a statement that someone *thinks* the works are all DFSG free; it is not a statement from a licensor that the works are all distributed under a *specific* license which is DFSG-free. So a claim that "everything is DFSG-compliant" when, say, one of the styles is known to be distributed under a license prohibiting modification is a false statement, not a licensing ambiguity. That doesn't mean texlive needs a full license audit before release, any more than any other package does; it does mean that any license problems you find don't get a pass for etch just because of this statement. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
