3

I would like to release some .tex files to the open source community using the MIT license but am unsure of the implication.

Specifically, I want to make sure that generated output (PDF/DVI) files don't need to have a license included with them. What license will allow end users the full freedom to modify and publish the source but doesn't require them to provide the license in their generated output?

| improve this question | |
  • Do you want to license the contents or the tex code producing any kind of arbitrary content? – Trefex May 20 '14 at 19:20
  • Just the tex code. The only thing I would care about is that the source (tex files) maintain attribution to the original author. I want people to feel free to make any other modifications. – vmrob May 20 '14 at 19:22
  • 2
    LPPL isn't really designed for documents I'd use one of the CC licences if you want to licence it, they have a flowchart to guide you through the possibilities of attribution, commercial use etc creativecommons.org/choose (but I think this is off topic for this site) – David Carlisle May 20 '14 at 19:36
2

Most packages and documentclasses use the LPPL (LaTeX Project Public License).

The LaTeX project public license is a free software license.

Current version of the LPPL: http://latex-project.org/lppl/

| improve this answer | |
  • I'm avoiding the lppl for it's verbosity and requirements for derivative works to "[contain] prominent notices detailing the nature of the changes". I think requiring anyone who wants to distribute a change to include a change log seems a bit too much. The tex file(s) in question are really just the source to a single 2 page document. – vmrob May 20 '14 at 19:15

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