[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Savannah-hackers] Licensing LaTeX documents
From: |
Sylvain Beucler |
Subject: |
Re: [Savannah-hackers] Licensing LaTeX documents |
Date: |
Fri, 8 Oct 2004 23:09:48 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4.2.1i |
Hi,
Did you receive this request? I need it asap to decide whether to
approve a project at Savannah.
Thanks,
--
Sylvain
Savannah hacker: savannah.gnu.org
On Sat, Oct 02, 2004 at 07:02:35PM +0200, Sylvain Beucler wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would like to know what licensing terms you recommand for
> documentation that uses external modules for the documentation system
> (not the documentation itself), that are incompatible with the
> licensing terms of the documentation.
>
> For example, I am reviewing a project that offers LaTeX classes under
> the GNU GPL, and uses the 'prosper' module, that is released under the
> LPPL 1.2 and not present in my tetex distribution (Red Hat Linux
> 7.3's). Is it OK? Or does the project submitter needs to add a GPL
> exception (maybe tacit) regarding LaTeX?
>
> Another example, I write a document released under the GFDL based on
> other GFDL work, using the Texinfo documentation system. Does this
> mean I can only use GFDL'd Texinfo macros not present in the Texinfo
> standard package?
>
> What licensing terms would you recommend in such situations?
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Sylvain
> Savannah hacker: savannah.gnu.org