[XeTeX] Performance of ucharclasses

[Keith J. Schultz]

O.K. I will jump in here.

Intellectual property rights are often a great big gray zone.
Maybe, it is time the author of the package speaks up himself
what is meant.

Also, it does seem clear if the code being used or parts thereof are from a 
different party, who may or may not have rights which they will enforce.

Furthermore, the author at least signals, s/he wants to keep control of the code.
The use of "discouraged" indicates that the author or a third party may or may not
go to court over the modified version. It is very clear that the author does not want
modified versions being distributed. I admit that stronger legal terms should have been
used. 

As the author has used this fuzzy legal terminology, it very hard to say how a judge might
rule. It is like parking a car just because the car is not parked inside of a no parking zone
you could still get a fine. 

It is sane not to include this package in TeXLive as to avoid the complications above, as
you never know want a contributor may do with the code and unknowingly cause problems
and why should TeXLive put effort into a package that is not freely available, to ensure that they
right side of the law.

regards
	Keith.

Am 23.10.2011 um 18:59 schrieb Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd):

> 
> 
> mskala at ansuz.sooke.bc.ca wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Oct 2011, Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote:
>>> clearly they are -- but in terms of actual requirements.  Since
>>> you are only "discouraged from" and not "prohibited from"
>>> making changes, I believe that a court of law would find that
>>> there is no actual inconsistency in practice.
>> 
>> Do note that the ucharclasses package isn't covered by the LPPL at all.
>> The author is free to put whatever license he wants on it, and whether
>> the license he chose is consistent with the LPPL isn't particularly
>> relevant.  We might as well as whether it's consistent with the GNU GPL
>> or the Argentinian Constitution.
> 
> The issue that Vafa raised was as follows :
> 
>> No, the license of the package in not LPPL.
> > In fact, it is non-free and that is why it
> > is not included in TeXLive. The README in "License" section says:
> 
>>> You
>>> may freely use this package, but you are discouraged from
>>> modifying this package and then redistributing it. Instead,
>>> please contact me (ideally on the XeTeX mailing list) and
>>> we can discuss the changes you wish to make. If they
>>> benefit everyone, they will be worked in as a new version.
> 
> and the point that I was making is that "discouraged from"
> is not the same as "are not allowed to" and therefore should
> not be taken as an reason to exclude the package from TeX Live.
> Whether the package licence conflicts with the LPPL, or with the
> GNU PL, or with the Constitution of Argentina, is not really
> the point at issue.
> 
> Philip Taylor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------
> Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
> http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex