Am 23.08.2006 um 14:53 schrieb Frank Küster:
Dear Till,
I'm one of the maintainers of teTeX and TeXLive in the Debian/GNU
Linux
distribution[1]. While verifying the licenses of the components of
TeXLive and teTeX, I found that the situation of beamer and pgf is
somehow unclear.
Many of the files contain a header that states that they are under the
LPPL. On the other hand, both manuals contain a section that says
that
the respective package is distributed under the GPL. However, the GPL
statement does not say which files are included. One could suspect
that
the lists in FILES (latex-beamer-3.06/FILES or pgf-1.00/doc/pgf/FILES)
indicate which files are covered, but they also include files with
LPPL
header. Which of that is true, or are some files dual-licensed?
There are also some eps and jpeg files included which look as if they
were not created by you (in particular the Apple Mac and TU logo
images), and for all of them I wonder whether JPEG is actually the
source, the "preferred form for modification".
I would be much obliged if you could clarify this - either just by
answering this e-mail, ideally also by stating the license more
explicit
in the next release.
Regards, Frank
[1] and a DANTE member, too; I heard your talk at the DANTE meeting in
Berlin and since then am waiting for an opportunity to test TikZ, but
only had to typeset formulae...
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie,
Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
Dear Frank,
the license changed from time to time and at some point changing the
headers in hundreds of files became too cumbersome. Aditionally, I am
not perfectly sure which license is actually the best to choose.
Here is what I will do: I am currently preparing a new release of pgf
and presumably also of beamer and intend to have this release ready
before the new semester, that is, by mid October. In this release I
will make sure that the license stuff is correct, that is, the
licening is consistent and correct.
Concerning the pictures: Indeed, the Apple logo has been downloaded
from the Apple website as, thus, should not be used. I'll try to
replace it by something else in the new release. Concerning the TU
logo: Hmm, ... This part of an actual example that is an official
publication of the TU Berlin (namely by myself), so I should be
perfectly entitled to use and distribute it. However, that does not
mean that I can put the logo under GPL. Hmm. I presume, it would be
best to just say that the TU logo is copyrighted by the TU Berlin,
but have it be part of the distribution.
Hoping this helps,
Till
--
Prof. Dr. Till Tantau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.tcs.uni-luebeck.de
