Re: Potential LSR licensing violations

[Kevin Barry]

On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 01:27:07PM +0200, Jean Abou Samra wrote:
> It would have helped IMO if all the more or less unrelated side
> questions had been raised in separate threads…

Well yes, but it's totally unavoidable any time licencing comes up for
discussion. The subject itself seems to be a magnet for generating
endless pontificating (I'm guilty of this too).

I see some messages in this thread about how included style files in
LaTeX mean the resulting PDF is GPL. It reminds me of a similar
discussion about LilyPond some years ago (about '\include "english.ly"'
I think) that went nowhere, wasted everyone's time, and was never
resolved. That discussion probably did the most in putting me off the
subject for life.

> What's the specification of that job?
> 
> As I wrote to Harm (but maybe the mailing list didn't
> deliver that post to you yet), I don't think there is
> a lot to do. If you see a clear license violation,
> correct it, as we've done here.

The question of whether it's a requirement or not has nothing to do with
how onerous it is. I can't weigh in on the specification of the duties
because I wouldn't particularly be in favour of adding that
responsibility to the LSR maintainers (but I won't object either).

Kevin