Request for review: tetex-prosper (license)

[Ed Hill]

On Wed, 2005-06-01 at 20:02 +0100, Jose Pedro Oliveira wrote:
> > and come back to this discussion only after you have figured out that
> > prosper is licensed under something OTHER than the LPPL.
> 
> My mistake. Must have loaded the wrong latex file. But I did see this
> package licensed as LPPL in the CTAN catalogue:
>   http://www.ctan.org/tex-archive/help/Catalogue/entries/prosper.html
> 
> But this package is also licensed as GPL according to the Sourceforge
> summary page
>   http://sourceforge.net/projects/prosper/
> 
> I think it is better to contact the author.


No.

The correct answer is to carefully *read* the actual files that are
shipped because, in this case, they clearly and unambiguously stipulate
the license terms.  Period.

And the fact that both the SourceForge summary page and the CTAN catalog
are wrong in this regard should be seen a warning to us (the FE
community) not to make the same sloppy mistake.

So if you, Jose, really want to send an email then perhaps you could
contact the SourceForge site admin and/or the CTAN entry maintainer and
help them correct their license-category entries.

Ed

-- 
Edward H. Hill III, PhD
office:  MIT Dept. of EAPS;  Rm 54-1424;  77 Massachusetts Ave.
             Cambridge, MA 02139-4307
emails:  eh3 at mit.edu                ed at eh3.com
URLs:    http://web.mit.edu/eh3/    http://eh3.com/
phone:   617-253-0098
fax:     617-253-4464