On Tue, 1 Jun 1999, Raul Miller wrote: > My current take: > > legal.txt requires that all files in manifest.txt be included in > the distribution (in debian terms: not necessarily in the same > package but on the same media, with an exception for floppies).
I understand ; afaik there is no tetex-src package. > If we're not doing that then we shouldn't be distributting LPPL'd > code. > > > Now, let's have a look at a recent texmf tree distributed with teTeX > > teTeX-texmf-0.9-990517.tar.gz > > prompt> find . -name manifest.txt > > ./doc/latex/base/manifest.txt > > ./doc/latex/mfnfss/manifest.txt > > ./doc/latex/tools/manifest.txt > > ./doc/latex/cyrillic/manifest.txt > > Um, not exactly. > > legal.txt indicates only one manifest.txt -- not all files named > manifest.txt. Furthermore, it indicates that a proper manifest.txt > will list legal.txt... so I think the pieces are seperable to > that degree. I was not clear enough. The copyright you read is used by other pieces of teTeX. The ``find'' was to find which packages are covered by the LPPL. A better command is find . -name manifest\* -o -name MANIFEST But babel (/usr/lib/texmf/tex/generic/babel/babel.sty) is also covered by this license whereas teTeX is shipped without the manifest.txt asociated with it. In all cases, only source files are listed in this files. Denis
