[tex-live] Catalogue sources

Robin Fairbairns Robin.Fairbairns at cl.cam.ac.uk
Fri Sep 11 01:39:20 CEST 2009

Karl Berry <karl at freefriends.org> wrote:

>     we get this quite often, actually: people docstrip something and then
>     reckon people don't need the .dtx
> And do you consistently use nosource in those cases?  Somehow it hasn't
> come up before.

nosource, except where there's a licence that (in my view) overrides it
-- like nosell, shareware, etc.

i'm surprised it hasn't come up before -- at one time a lot of stuff
from river valley was like that, for example.

>     the licence statement in the readmes is confusing -- says something like
>       "artistic/gpl, version 2"
>     which could also mean "artistic1/gpl2", i.e., not ok.
> On the contrary, artistic1/gpl2 is ok (because of the gpl2 part :).

depends.  if the meaning is "parts of this are artistic1, other parts
gpl2", then it's surely not ok.  (or is it?)  this isn't clear from the
original text, imo.


More information about the tex-live mailing list