Fwd: License to distribute your arabtex package sought

[Thomas Esser]

> I can see that James C might want to distribute a system called `jade'
> or `expat' or whatever with a requirement that you don't mention `James
> Clark', but I don't see how you can give a requirement that someone
> distributing amstex does not mention the ams as it's part of the system
> name, it's rather hard to avoid.
> 
> Having delayed latex for another month wrangling over the wording of
> lppl 1.1 I don't think adding another clause to lppl would find favour
> today. (Today might possibly be june 1st)

If lppl is changed in a way that the author's name of a lppl package
must not be mentioned at certain places, that would be a *big* change
which should not be done without being thoroughly discussed.

My opinion is not to do this change now. One other reason is that lppl
should not introduce such kind of change without a strong reason. If
lppl does not become stable, people will stop using it for their packages
(because they do not know what that license it will be in the future).

A much better idea is to release the new LaTeX ASAP... :-)

Thomas