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

Re: Request for review: tetex-prosper (update to latest version)



On Fri, 2005-06-03 at 10:26 +0100, José Pedro Oliveira wrote:
> Michael,
> 
> > http://mpeters.us/fc_extras/tetex-prosper.spec
> > http://mpeters.us/fc_extras/tetex-prosper-1.00.4-0.3.src.rpm
> 
> The latest released version of prosper is the one available in the CTAN
> mirrors and the licence of this version is indeed LPPL [1].
> 
> Regards,
> jpo
> 
> [1] - this is the version that I have installed and used two years ago.


Hi Jose,

While you weren't actually helpful enough to provide any URLs [:-|],
you're right that there appears to be a "newer" version of prosper
available at:

  http://www.ctan.org/tex-archive/macros/latex/contrib/prosper/

So why do I put the "newer" in quotes?  Well, the official prosper web
site (http://prosper.sourceforge.net/) makes absolutely no mention of
the sources at CTAN.  It explicitly points folks towards the SF.net
downloads which Michael used.

Digging into the email lists on the prosper SF.net site and the prosper
wiki:

  http://wikiprosper.bbclone.de/index.php?pagename=ProsperFaq

it becomes apparent that prosper is actively used (multiple posts every
month to the user list) even if it isn't actively developed.  Further,
in-the-know prosper users appear to use (FAQ #6) the latest version from
CVS (1.25) or the slightly *OLDER* snapshot that you mention on CTAN
(appears to be CVS 1.24).

And what bearing does all this have on the license?  Well, the latest
version in CVS is LPPL v1.2 and the 1.00.4 release is the older MIT-like
license from the original author.

So, Michael has a few choices.  He can package the 1.00.4 release as he
has already done and keep it as-is license-wise.  Or, he can package
some newer CVS snapshot in which case he'll have to change the license
tag just as the project itself changed its license.  Or he can do the
former and, at some point, upgrade.

I think the latest from CVS is probably the best but its Michael's
choice since he is the packager, not us.

Ed

ps - And yes, the unowned directories do need to be fixed.  Good catch.


-- 
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]