[tex-live] Catalogue sources

[Robin Fairbairns]

Karl Berry <karl at freefriends.org> wrote:

>     we get this quite often, actually: people docstrip something and then
>     reckon people don't need the .dtx
> 
> And do you consistently use nosource in those cases?  Somehow it hasn't
> come up before.

nosource, except where there's a licence that (in my view) overrides it
-- like nosell, shareware, etc.

i'm surprised it hasn't come up before -- at one time a lot of stuff
from river valley was like that, for example.

>     the licence statement in the readmes is confusing -- says something like
>       "artistic/gpl, version 2"
>     which could also mean "artistic1/gpl2", i.e., not ok.
> 
> On the contrary, artistic1/gpl2 is ok (because of the gpl2 part :).

depends.  if the meaning is "parts of this are artistic1, other parts
gpl2", then it's surely not ok.  (or is it?)  this isn't clear from the
original text, imo.

r