Hi, thanks for keeping us informed.
benedikt.ahr...@unice.fr wrote: > I'll forward all the comments collected to the AMS team. Thanks for that. > Here's a copy of the draft license that I propose to append to the > current AMS-LaTeX distributions. Do you have any questions or > comments before I release it? > > The AMS is in the process of restating and updating the license on all > of its distributed files in order to bring the license into line with > current standards of "free" software licenses. Since it will take > some time to update all individual files, we're distributing this file > now to clarify the license on currently-distributed files. > > The following license replaces any conflicting statement found inside > any files distributed by the American Mathematical Society as part of > the AMS-LaTeX distribution, including the amscls and amsmath > components, and related files. > > Unlimited copying and redistribution of this file are permitted as > long as this file is not modified. Modifications, and > distribution of modified versions, are permitted, but only if the > resulting file is renamed. > > This includes -- but is not necessarily limited to -- the > following files: [... long list of .dtx and .ins as well as unpacked files snipped] That sounds good. One question remains: Are all files currently marked as "Copyright by AMS"? Some at least have; but if not all, then the AMS should either claim in their 00LICENSE file to have the copyright or to have the permission of the copyright holders. > Incidentally, a number of the associated files (especially various > documentation files and release notes) do not have any included > license statement. Is that something that we need to address or is it > understood that they are are covered by the same license in associated > files? If the documentation is generated from a dtx file, but has no license statement in the readable text, I don't see a need. However, any other documentation (e.g. READMEs) should have a copyright statement unless the content is trivial. I'm not sure whether release notes are copyrightable content at all; or rather whether *these* are. > I suspect that the safest thing for us to do in the future is > include a 00LICENSE.txt file with wording similar to the above in all > of our distributions. Yes, ideally covering docs, too. Regards, Frank -- Dr. Frank Küster Debian Developer (TeXLive) VCD Aschaffenburg-Miltenberg, ADFC Miltenberg B90/Grüne KV Miltenberg -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org