Hi, Frank Küster a écrit : > Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> The terms which apply to the original source do not matter here. The >> license on the file I pointed to forbids distribution and >> modification, yet Debian distributes it in main. > > We have just talked about this in #473216. The same objections were > raised there, Cc'ing the submitter. > Hmm... looking carefully at the files in the computational-complexity latex package (esp. the .ins file) one can see that the incriminated phrases are really from the package's author, and not inserted by default by docstrip. I mean, perhaps the author copied them from the docstrip default phrases, but he also added some details of his own.
So I feel like there's two independent problems here: 1. Computational-complexity's author made contradictory licenses statements by stating on one hand that the work is under LPPL and on the other hand that the generated files are not distributable. This should be fixed by telling the author since it is certainly not intended. 2. Docstrip's default text assumes something about the licenses, which IMHO it shouldn't do. This is technically unrelated to the current bug, but maybe related in the sense that cc's author could have thought that the best thing to do was to copy docstrip's default header. Anyway, the LPPL is obviously not the problem here, but rather the way that people sometimes get confused while trying to use it. Regards, Manuel.
