[texhax] shear transform

[Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd)]

Karl Berry wrote:
>      this is just my common sense interpretation.
>
> Ok, there's no point in going on with this thread.
>    
I respectfully disagree.  I asked a follow-up question to which there
has yet been no reply, and I think that all concerned would benefit
from a clarification of the issue.  I repeat it below, together with
subsidiary questions that may need to be addressed before the situation
is fully clear :

> [I]s there a requirement that the other licences be made
> explicit ?  If ]XeTeX] is linked to Libkpathsea (or whatever), does the
> licence for Libkpathsea explicitly require that its licence be
> referred to in the licence for any piece of software that uses it ? 

The subsidiary questions are : once XeTeX has been linked into
Libkpathsea, do they then form a monolithic whole ?  In other
words, if I receive from Jonathan XeTeX.exe, does this .exe
include Libkpathsea, or does it simply make reference to it,
which reference is satisfied at run time ?  Because if XeTeX.exe
/contains /Libkpathsea, then I would expect the licence for
Libkpathsea (and any other analogous components) to have to
be made explicit; whereas if XeTeX.exe is just a stub, which binds
at run-time to Libkpathsea, then I can see no need for the latter's
licence to be made explicit because Jonathan is not distributing
a copy of Libkpathsea, merely a reference to it.

** Phil.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://tug.org/pipermail/texhax/attachments/20110519/b5aa382f/attachment-0001.html>