[tex-live] license question

Stephan Hennig mailing_list at arcor.de
Mon Sep 15 16:50:55 CEST 2008

David Kastrup schrieb:
> Jonathan Kew <jonathan at jfkew.plus.com> writes:
>> On 10 Sep 2008, at 7:33 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
>>> Stephan Hennig <mailing_list at arcor.de> writes:
>>>> For users of our work it's the same situation as if there were no
>>>> sources.  Anything wrong with that?
>>> Yes.  Since the GPL mandates distributing the sources (the "preferred
>>> form of the work for making modifications to it"), nobody can meet
>>> the conditions.  As a result, the patterns are not redistributable
>>> legally.
>> I don't follow this.
> I have to admit I have been mislead by his use of the word "source".
> The GPL has quite a clear definition of "source code" with regard to the
> scope of the covered material.  I agree that it does not match what
> Stephan describes with "But in fact, there is source for our work that
> cannot be distributed." and "For users of our work it's the same
> situation as if there were no sources."

Thanks for pointing that out!  My bad terminology is clearly an
expression of the confusion on my side.

A clear distinction has to be made between a source (a work) we refer to
while preparing our list and the /source code/ of a work.  As I
understand it now, since our list is a work in source code form and has
no corresponding source code other than itself, GPL doesn't put any
restriction on distribution of the word list as a standalone work.
Distribution can be restricted by the license of the original list, but
since that's not the case all is fine.

Best regards,
Stephan Hennig

More information about the tex-live mailing list