Request for review: tetex-prosper (license)

[José Pedro Oliveira]

Ed Hill wrote:
> 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,

For your information the latest version of Prosper, which is available
on CTAN, is indeed LPPL.

jpo
-- 
José Pedro Oliveira
* mailto: jpo at di.uminho.pt * http://gsd.di.uminho.pt/~jpo *
* gpg fingerprint = F9B6 8D87 859D 1C94 48F0 84C0 9749 9EB5 91BD 851B *

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 251 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/attachments/20050603/0f9d648e/attachment.sig>