Take the 2-minute tour ×
TeX - LaTeX Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for users of TeX, LaTeX, ConTeXt, and related typesetting systems. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Is there a list of open source hosting facilities which accept (La)TeX packages published under the LPPL license? Which open source hosting facility did you chose for your (La)TeX project and why?

share|improve this question
3  
This feels like the sort of question that should be community wiki. –  Loop Space Aug 27 '11 at 18:48

5 Answers 5

up vote 6 down vote accepted

The LPPL is relatively unusual, and so for sites which limit to open source licenses you may have to ask. In the past, I've used BerliOS: they seemed quite flexible about the license provided you provide a reason.

On the other hand, there are sites which host in a license-neutral way. For example, both GitHub and BitBucket allow you to use any license. (These sites tend to make their money from closed-source material from paying customers.)

Thus the question tends not to be 'which host supports the license', but is more to do with other features.

share|improve this answer
    
BerliOS has a bad security history and is run by Mr. Schily, so I suggest to stay away from it if you can. But hat's just my personal opinion. –  Martin Schröder Aug 27 '11 at 17:21
    
I second BitBucket, I host my LaTeX package (under LPPL of course) there now. –  Martin Scharrer Aug 27 '11 at 17:53
    
@Martin Schröder: My issue with BerliOS was more that it's rather old-fashioned, hence using BiBucket for my own code nowadays (although with my UK-TUG hat on we're using GitHub). –  Joseph Wright Aug 27 '11 at 17:58
    
@Joseph: Note, that a space ends the user name, so you just wrote to @Martin which was me, because I was the last Martin which commented here. Write @MartinSchröder. –  Martin Scharrer Aug 27 '11 at 17:59
1  
BTW: Berlios will be closed on 31.12.2011, see developer.berlios.de/forum/forum.php?forum_id=37450 –  Axel Sommerfeldt Oct 5 '11 at 18:18

We're using Launchpad for the TeX-SX "Answers to Packages" package (start with What are your favourite TikZ/PGF answers? and follow the links). I remember that I had to select something like "Other free licence" when I signed up and there was a notice saying that they would assess the licence and get back to me if it wasn't okay. They haven't gotten back to me so I assume that they're okay with the LPPL.

share|improve this answer

I believe the issue with Open Source hosters having problems with the LPPL is a thing of the past since the OSI and the FSF now accept the LPPL. For example sourceforge.net simply wants an OSI approved license.

share|improve this answer

To date, Sourceforge has no LPPL in the license category listing. Since now LPPL is an OSI-approved license, I opened a ticket about adding LPPL to the listing. Nevertheless, I consider Sourceforge a friendly place to host opensource projects. And there's also GitHub. =)

share|improve this answer

Consider simply dual-licensing your package. It’s pretty common to have Open Source projects use multiple licenses and just let the user pick what suits them best.

This way, you can license your package as LPPL, but at the same time have any other license that satisfies your code hoster. For instance, the README file of my minted package contains the following passage:

This work may be distributed and/or modified under the conditions of the LaTeX Project Public License, either version 1.3 of this license or (at your option) any later version. Additionally, the project may be distributed under the terms of the new BSD license.

This is both legal and safe.

share|improve this answer
    
@Downvoter: please leave comment explaining your downvote. –  Konrad Rudolph Aug 28 '11 at 15:40
    
One benefit of the LPPL (over GPL or BSD) is that the user is only allowed to do a fork if he changes the package name. Wouldn't dual-licensing nullify this benefit? –  Axel Sommerfeldt Sep 4 '11 at 10:18
    
@Axel True. Is that a problem in practice? Wouldn’t a modified package of the same name by a different author simply be rejected by CTAN? –  Konrad Rudolph Sep 4 '11 at 12:07
    
Don't know, will they? Should I try to upload a modified version of minted to CTAN? ;-) Anyway, I think this can get a problem in practice. An example: There was a modified version of KOMA-Script bundled with a LaTeX document template, published on a website. Markus Kohm was able to abandon that because of the license. –  Axel Sommerfeldt Sep 4 '11 at 12:47

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.