Message-ID:  <199511161726.MAA00877@aleph.bu.edu>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@VM.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
In-Reply-To:  Your message of "Thu, 16 Nov 1995 14:45:29 GMT."
              <9511161445.AA11577@r8h.cs.man.ac.uk>
Date:         Thu, 16 Nov 1995 12:26:09 -0500
From: Matthew Swift <swift@BU.EDU>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@VM.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L
              <LATEX-L@VM.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Subject:      Re: distribution conditions on packages and other LaTeX software
Status: R

>>>>> "David" == David Carlisle <carlisle%CS.MAN.AC.UK@BUACCA.BU.EDU> writes:

    David> Note that an author can always release software to
    David> different people under different licenses.

    David> We are not `against' GPL in any way, but as we have chosen
    David> for reasons explained in modguide.tex not to use it on
    David> LaTeX, then we can not, as of right, include GPL'ed code
    David> into LaTeX, as that would force the whole of LaTeX under
    David> the GPL. However if you put some code up on CTAN (or
    David> elsewhere) under GPL you can still mail the LaTeX3 project
    David> (say via this list, or privately) and state that the code
    David> may be integrated into a Standard LaTeX distribution under
    David> the distribution conditions that apply to the rest of the
    David> distribution.

    (Sorry about this verbose attribution, it's beginning to annoy me
    too.)

This option sounds ideal for my purposes, which is to do the right
thing without having to strain myself in thought.  I do think the GPL
is attractive to use for reasons of principle, but also important is
that it is practically easy to use.  It is the model I had in mind
when I suggested a cut-and-paste template for a package's conditions.
It is also widely known, so that even people who don't read
distribution conditions carefully will understand them from repeated
exposure.