Re: Splitting teTeX
Dear Richard,
> So, the status of teTeX is, that it I am not aware of non-free packages
> in it.
>
> Great! Will you have a chance to make a release some time soon?
The currently available (beta) release of teTeX contains two packages
with problems which I have fixed in my private versions (one package
updated, one package removed). I could release my private package, but
it contains lots of other TeX/LaTeX packages which habe been changed in
the last 5 months. (People usually expect that everything is up-to-date
in my teTeX releases; even in beta releases).
My plans with teTeX are: no new stable release in 2000 and 2001. But,
I'll try to update the beta release from time to time. The reason
for releasing not doing a stable release is the ammount of work
involved. Stable releases always come with an installation program and
binaries for lots of platforms.
The easiest thing might be to release the current state of my work as a
new beta release and add some README file which says that not everything
is up-to-date. Ok?
> I have an idea. We should divide this into two steps:
>
> 1. Finding all files that have any unusual license condition.
>
> 2. Checking the licenses that appear in these files
> to make sure all of them qualify as free software licenses.
>
> For number 1, if you have not yet done it, my idea is that you should
> post a list of the files which you know of that have unusual license
> conditions. Then we can offer to pay $25 to anyone who can report a file
> which has a special license condition and is not in your list.
Ok. But, you have to start with the empty list, since I have no list of
files with unusual license conditions.
> For number 2, the best thing is for me to check each of the unusual license
> conditions that has been found.
Viele Grüße,
Thomas
Reply to: