[tex-live] your eqexam package

Will Robertson wspr81 at gmail.com
Fri Jul 9 03:42:13 CEST 2010

(Sent quickly. Please excuse brevity.)

On 09/07/2010, at 10:26 AM, "Don Story" <dpstory at hotmail.com> wrote:

> I would happily distribute acrotex with tex-live, but for the restrictions
> on the documentation; of course, I could simply pdflatex the dtx file, but I
> usually only include minimal descriptions for my own purposes, and to remind
> myself of any reasoning that I was using at the time. Typically, I have a
> separate manual that is more reader friendly.

I must confess I am confused. Even if it cannot be compiled due to proprietary fonts (which is also the case with the fontspec manual, also for biblatex, etc.) what is wrong with including the source file for your manual?


> dps
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: staw at staw.homedns.org [mailto:staw at staw.homedns.org] On Behalf Of
>> Staszek Wawrykiewicz
>> Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 6:50 PM
>> To: Don Story
>> Cc: tex-live at tug.org; 'Robin Fairbairns'; Jim Hefferon; ctan at dante.de
>> Subject: Re: [tex-live] your eqexam package
>> On Thu, 8 Jul 2010, Don Story wrote:
>>> Dear tex-live team, please remove all my packages (acrotex,eqexam,etc)
> from
>>> the tex-live distribution. For various reasons, I never distribute
> source
>>> files of the documentation.  The packages can be downloaded from CTAN or
>>> from the home pages of the packages. Should your require further
>>> particulars, please contact me at dpstory at uakron.edu, or any of my other
>>> email addresses.
>> Ahhh... really pity. For me those packages are the pearls! And all macros
>> are signed LPPL anyway. We have so many packages without doc sources (like
>> fonts or context), so I still cannot understand why we have such
>> restrictions. I dare swear that for open source packages
>> we use too much restrictions, or, hmmm... how to say, political
>> (american :) correctness. All in all:
>> - the program, macro, font IS open source;
>> - why we cannot give freedom to the developers to add (also freely
>>   distributable and readable) the documentation, which is not real,
>>   workable part of the package itself?
>>>>> I believe we went over this before, all my manuals are written with
>>> YandY
>>>>> TeX, with my own special macros and fonts. A person would not be able
> to
>>>>> compile the document from its source, so what's the point.
>> Just the case, as Don Story kindly explained.
>> All the best,
>> ----
>> Staszek Wawrykiewicz
>> staw at gust.org.pl

More information about the tex-live mailing list