Re: license violation in tetex-texmf-3.0 fixed

[email protected] wrote:

> In the real world communications between well-intentioned parties are
> never perfect.  A license such as yours has advantages (preventing a
> morass of slightly different versions with conflicting filenames so
> user don't know which is which) but imposes a burden on packagers and
> authors.

It also has more disadvantages.  Thinking it over, I can't figure out
under which license I may and/or must distribute a derivative work which
I created and renamed.  If csplain were under GPL, it's clear:  It must
be GPL.  But it isn't under the GPL, and the license it is under doesn't
state clearly which license derivatives are supposed to use.  =


I obviously can't use the same license text (because "same name
'csplain'" would be self-contradictory).  Am I obligded to replace
'csplain" by my new name?  Or am I allowed to drop it?

Regards, Frank
-- =

Frank K=FCster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Z=
=FCrich
Debian Developer (teTeX)