[tex-live] catalogue -- minor license clarification issues (artistic and others)

[Alexander Cherepanov]

Hi all!

Some minor license clarification issues.

--- mkjobtexmf -------------------------------------------------------

>From README:

  License
  =======
  The file is part of project mkjobtexmf.
  It's free software; you may redistribute it and/or
  modify it under the same terms as Perl itself
  (Perl Artistic License/GNU General Public License, version 2).

>From the Catalogue (mkjobtexmf.xml):

  <license type='artistic'/>

Robin, could the license type be changed to gpl (with a note like 
'same as perl: artistc/gpl')? It's as true as the current license type 
but the package will be listed as free which is nice. Especially when 
everything else in a distribution is free (as in texlive).

--- texdiff ----------------------------------------------------------

>From README:

  COPYRIGHT AND LICENSE
      Copyleft 2006-2009, Mark Doll and Cengiz Gunay

      This library is free software; you may redistribute it and/or modify it
      under the same terms as Perl itself.

>From the Catalogue (texdiff.xml):

  <license type='artistic' checked='2009-09-24' file='README'
           version='0.4' username='robin'/>

Could this also be changed to gpl?

--- texdirflatten ----------------------------------------------------

>From README:

  COPYRIGHT AND LICENSE
      Copyleft 2003-2009, Cengiz Gunay

      This library is free software; you may redistribute it and/or modify it
      under the same terms as Perl itself.

>From the Catalogue (texdirflatten.xml):

  <license type='artistic' note='claimed on upload only - nothing in files'/>

Could this also be changed to gpl?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The rest of the packages are not in texlive so of interest only for 
ctan@ .

---- tengtex ---------------------------------------------------------

>From the Catalogue (dvi2tty.xml):

  <license type='other-free' checked='2008-12-19' file='vanda.tex'
           version='1.00' username='robin'
           note='that licence file is written in pseudo-tolkien, but
                 does seem to say that distribution may be free'/>
                 
>From vanda.tex:

  I hereby offer these spells to all who would have them, for toil or
  for~mirth, and I grant them leave to copy them. But credit they shall
  give in their hearts to me, Tolkien, F\"eanor, Aul\"e and Eru, and
  they shall not trade the spells, nor any thing wrought therewith, for
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  gold, silver and jewels. Death in torment and darkness shall be the
  doom of the greedy who heed not this oath, and their names shall not
  be~uttered, but shall be forgotten for~ever between the borders of the
  world and beyond them.

Seems like nosell? (My pseudo-tolkien is more poor then my English 
though:-)

---- wordweb ---------------------------------------------------------

>From the Catalogue (wordweb.xml):

  <license type='noinfo' checked='2009-01-07' file='*'
           version='1993-06-30' username='robin'
           note='licence information may exist in .doc files...'/>
           
>From WORDWEB.DOC:

  Disclaimer
  This program is provided merely as a jumping-off point for future 
  work by others, and therefore comes with no warranty whatsoever.  
  The author has no intention of supporting it, as he does not use it 
  himself.  This work is freely distributable, and it is expected that 
  works derived from it will be freely distributable as well.  If you 
  create a work based on this program that you intend to release 
  commercially, you must first get permission from the author.  If 
  your work is to be distributed at no charge, no special permission 
  is necessary, but you must give appropriate credit to Lee Wittenberg 
  and Tipton Cole+Co. in your documentation and copyright (or 
  copyleft) notices..

NEWWWEB.DOC contains the same disclaimer.

Looks like "nosell".

--- figsinltx --------------------------------------------------------

>From the Catalogue (figsinltx.xml):

  <license type='noinfo' checked='2008-10-10' file='figsinltx.ps'
           version='1.1' username='robin'
           note='no source available'/>

I think it's better to classify it as "nosource"? (Assuming that the 
fact of submission to ctan implies the permission to distribute.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Alexander Cherepanov