[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Request for review: tetex-prosper (LPPL license)



On Wed, 2005-06-01 at 11:32 +0100, Jose Pedro Oliveira wrote:
> LPPL license
> ------------
> 
> Last February I pinged the fedora-packaging mailing list about the LPPL
> license and got the following answer from Tom Callaway:
> 
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2005-February/msg00132.html


Hi Jose,

I'm glad to hear that the LPPL is OK for Fedora Extras.  Thats fine.

However, its *COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT* to this discussion because prosper
is NOT LICENSED BY THE LPPL.  Thats the whole point of the three
previous emails in this thread.  So, please go back and read my and
Ignacio's emails again:

  https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2005-
June/msg00003.html
  https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2005-
June/msg00008.html
  https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2005-
June/msg00009.html

and come back to this discussion only after you have figured out that
prosper is licensed under something OTHER than the LPPL.

Ed

ps - And yes, Ignacio is certainly correct when he says that the 
  license is closer to an MIT-style than a BSD-style.


> >> >> http://mpeters.us/fc_extras/tetex-prosper.spec
> >> >> http://mpeters.us/fc_extras/tetex-prosper-1.00.4-0.1.src.rpm
> >> >>
> >> >> fixed License tag as well
> >> >
> >> > Are there any outstanding issues?
> >>
> >> Yes, there are.
> >>
> >> 1) The license is wrong (BSD?).  According to the file prosper.cls
> >> it should be "LaTeX Project Public License".  This license is valid and
> >> is recognized by the lastest rpmlint versions (/etc/rpmlint/config).
> >
> >
> > Hi Jose,
> >
> > I think you need to take a second look at that prosper.cls file.  The
> > license shown in the first thirty lines of that file (which is included
> > below and is the only mention of *any* license within that file) looks
> > very BSD-like and does not look like any of the five (1.0--1.3a)
> > versions of the LaTeX Project Public License as documented at:
> >
> >   http://www.latex-project.org/lppl/
> >
> > Also, the only other mentions of a license that I could find within the
> > prosper source or web pages were:
> >
> >  (1) Web site says:
> >       "is Prosper free ?
> >        Prosper is entirely free in both senses: you do not have to
> >        pay for it, and you can do what you want with its source
> >        code, provided you comply with the terms of the original
> >        copyright."
> >
> >  (2) The commands
> >
> >        tar -xzf prosper-1.00.4.tar.gz
> >        cd prosper
> >        find . -type f | xargs grep -C 3 -i license
> >
> >      all seem to return the *same* BSD-like license which is
> >      included below.
> >
> > Ed
> >
> > --
> > Edward H. Hill III, PhD
> > office:  MIT Dept. of EAPS;  Rm 54-1424;  77 Massachusetts Ave.
> >              Cambridge, MA 02139-4307
> > emails:  eh3 mit edu                ed eh3 com
> > URLs:    http://web.mit.edu/eh3/    http://eh3.com/
> > phone:   617-253-0098
> > fax:     617-253-4464
> >
> 
> 
-- 
Edward H. Hill III, PhD
office:  MIT Dept. of EAPS;  Rm 54-1424;  77 Massachusetts Ave.
             Cambridge, MA 02139-4307
emails:  eh3 mit edu                ed eh3 com
URLs:    http://web.mit.edu/eh3/    http://eh3.com/
phone:   617-253-0098
fax:     617-253-4464


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]