On Tue, 1 Jun 1999, Raul Miller wrote: > Denis Barbier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > forgive my stupidity, i don't understand how a LaTeX distribution (say > > teTex) does not violate the LPPL. > > I don't know much about LaTeX, but the tetex stuff I have installed > on my system is GPLed.
teTeX is a ready-to-use LaTeX system. I understand that Thomas Esser distributes his work under GPL, but LaTeX files are covered by LPPL (e.g. /usr/lib/texmf/tex/latex/base/latex.ltx) > If we're talking about the same tetex then the LPPL has no > jurisdiction there.. [if we're talking about the same tetex, > and LPPL tries to restrict its distribution then the LPPLed > code can't be distributed with the tetex code, which is rather > ironic.] If you look into /usr/doc/texmf/latex/base/legal.txt.gz you read that all files listed in manifest.txt must be part of this distribution. If you look into this file, you see that all source files are listed. Then i deduce that teTeX can't be shipped without these sources. Am i wrong? Denis
