- I do not agree that ams(la)tex's current license is nonfree. To me, that needs a perverse misinterpretation of the author's intent. The ams license text is the same as Knuth's, written many years ago, before the current quagmire of license interpretations: you can redistributed modified versions, but have to change the filename.
We all agree that the license text is unfortunately worded, and that those conditions are undesirable. Debian may consider it nonfree. rms already declared similar conditions (the original LPPL) free on license-list.html. - It is technically possible to excise ams(la)tex from TeX Live. And ams(la)tex is not needed for documentation written in Texinfo. However, I think it would be a shame for free distributions to release such a mangled TeX distribution. It certainly would not serve people who actually want to use TeX (e.g., mathematicians). - the chance of AMS using their scarce available time to re-release older versions with dual-licensing to placate Debian is essentially nil, IMHO. Last I heard, they intend to make the next release sometime this year. We can only hope. _______________________________________________ gNewSense-dev mailing list gNewSense-dev@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnewsense-dev