Hi, On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 03:19:55PM +0200, Hilmar Preusse wrote: > in the beginning of 2003 it was discussed if the LPPL is DFSG > compatible. IIRC the result was the LPPL v1.3a^1, which is assumed to > be compatible to the DFSG.
If texlive is using it, then I would hope so. Otherwise it shouldn't be in main. > Hence we (the TeX Live maintainers) would > like to see that license mentioned in the policy. Not every acceptable license needs to be in policy. In fact none of them do. The only place in policy where licenses are mentioned, is about /usr/share/common-licenses. You mean it should be in there? > Actually the # of packages under this license is rather medium: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~ $ apt-cache search --names-only texlive|wc -l > 93 > > which should make > 100, as there are a lot of other packages beside > TeX Live under this license. If this is a good idea depends not only on the number of packages. We had some discussion about a good metric for deciding this, but didn't come to a conclusion. However, this doesn't sound like it qualifies IMO. The reason is that while TeX Live consists of a lot of packages, there are many installations where none of them are installed. Putting them in /usr/share/common-licenses means it is also installed on embedded system which are really short on storage (and which will certainly not install any TeX packages). A license should only be in /usr/share/common-licenses if it is hard to image a system which doesn't have any package under that license installed. How to measure that is obviously a problem. :-) Thanks, Bas -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://pcbcn10.phys.rug.nl/e-mail.html
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
