Draft of LUG letter

Sebastian Rahtz s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk
Wed, 3 Mar 1999 13:12:12 +0000 (GMT)

Arthur Ogawa writes:
 > OK, let us talk further. I cannot do much without the information anyway.
i'll prepare a summary of what I know about copyright

 > I intended ultimately to fall back on "The recipient of the CD
 > itself can only copy and redistribute the software thereon by
 > complying with the conditions placed on the relevant packages
 > involved." That some packages are mute on the point is a pesky
 > detail.
lack of copyright notice or PD declaration
means, according to Richard Stallman, that we cannot legally
distribute the file!

 > > 0.7 per CD is probably excluding the plastic sleeve, at least. you
 > > need to decide how to pack it.
 > Yes. Patricia got a bid for the CDs on spools. But we need them to be in
 > either paper or plastic sleeves in order to put them in TUGboat. She'll take
 > care of this item somehow.
there are many variants of plastic and paper sleeves. better get this

 > Well you may ask. Let's try it this way: does the presence of
 > multicol.dtx mean that Peter Deutsch's requirements cannot be
 > satisfied? Is there any other content on the CD that *must not* be
 > copied under any circumstance?
I wish I knew. lets see what my list throws up. i expect so. 

for instance, "french.sty" would not allow people to copy the CD,
would it?

 > To first order, I don't see that Peter's conditions throw a
 > spaniard into the works.
perhaps so.

 > In short, if you do anything more than copy the S/W to your computer or your
 > server, you must take the trouble to ensure that you are in compliance with
 > the licensing conditions of the S/W.
Good. where "anything more" includes *using*

 > Actually, I had multicol.dtx in mind here. Has FMi any plans on
 > relaxing that restriction?
no, he does not. it pleases him

 >  I swear, demanding a license for S/W
 > that constituted the basis for his Knuth Scholarship seems a bit
 > strange. Not to speak of its not being revised in 10 years.
its not a license. its an _invitation_ to pay ... (and people do!)

 > > some of them want to make money
 > Which packages fall in this category?

 > BTW, I have a retronym in mind for S/W that is free to use by not-for-profit
 > enterprises, but which entails a fee when used by a commercial entity:
 > grubware ;-)
i'll vote for that. it irritates me