Re: [Gnewsense-dev] Another tex package (texlive-base) to hack

[Sam Geeraerts]

Sam Geeraerts schreef:
> Karl Goetz schreef:
> > I have changed the status of the bug[1]. Its now NEEDSINFO, BLOCKER,
> > target release deltah (2.3).
> >
> > I'll adjust the status when we get word back from the FSF as to their
> > opinion.
> >
> > Sam/Benedikt, have either of you emailed the FSF yet?
>
> I assume nobody has up until now, so I've just sent them an email.

I got an answer back from FSF (more specifically: Karl Berry). It looks 
like we're getting off easy. It comes down to: their intent is/was good 
and we're overreacting. :)

Here's the answer in full:

Hi Sam,

    The team working on gNewSense are trying to decide what to do about 
the
    amslatex software.

My short answer is: include it  :) .

    It currently has a non-free license.

Agreed that the current wording is bad, the intent was always that it be
just as free as plain.tex and similar files from Knuth (which Debian
also doesn't like, but that's not our problem).  Those Knuthian files
had that wording for many years.  Anyway.

    although the "Modifications, and" part seems a bit weird (more
    like EULA than like copyright license).

I don't understand why you characterize it that way.  I suggested that
wording to AMS specifically to address the problem we often see of
licenses explicitly allowing modification, and explicitly allowing
distribution, but not explicitly allowing distribution of modified
versions.

(Just for the record, I argued as strongly as I could to use the LPPL,
but they are hung up on trying to control their filenames.  Sigh.)

    Considering that AMS probably own all
    the code in the package,

They do.

    is this an acceptable way of dealing with the situation?

It's certainly suboptimal, but I think it would be a terrible
overreaction to exclude amslatex just because of that.  Let's hope they
fix all their files soon.

Best,
address@hidden