Georg Baum wrote: >> Angus> I fail to see why it would be a hinderance. lyx2lyx is >> already Angus> distributed under the GPL. >> >> Angus> Anyway, I hereby announce that I am happy with the change of >> Angus> licence of tex2lyx to the GPL. So that's one fewer >> 'signature' Angus> you need to collect. >> >> I would not have any problem with that either. Actually, I think it >> would be a good idea. However, it occurs to me that tex2lyx uses >> some code from LyX itself that is not under the GPL but polluted >> one, so maybe changing licence is not really possible. > > I would like pure GPL, too. As I understand it, it is no problem to > place the tex2lyx source files under the GPL, because the > requirement that every needed components are free is fulfilled even > with the linked in files with the polluted license. Only tex2lyx as > a whole would not be pure GPL. But since I am not a lawyer this may > be complete nonsense.
Why don't we, as a first step, change the copying notice in the tex2lyx source files to reference COPYING.GPL? -- Angus
