- 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.
Indeed, that is acceptable in a free license.
Can someone please show me the entire license? Maybe I can confirm it
is ok.
- the chance of AMS using their scarce available time to re-release
older versions with dual-licensing to placate Debian is essentially
nil, IMHO.
What time do you think it requires?
All they have to do is give their approval.
_______________________________________________
gNewSense-dev mailing list
gNewSense-dev@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnewsense-dev
