retitle 345604 contains non-free documentation thanks Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> please take my apologies for bringing this up, but it seems I need to. > According to mreadme.pdf, the documentation is under a different license > than the code, with a "currently" attached to that statement. > Unfortunately, the license chosen for the documentation does not allow > inclusion in TeXLive (and Debian, hence the other Cc). I have been told privately from a texlive team member that he has already discussed this with ConTeXt upstream, and they are not likely to change it. Therefore we should start creating a tetex-doc-nonfree package. Since we should really check other docs as well, I'm retitling this one, and we'll keep it open until every document has been checked. I also think that while we can start removing ConTeXt documentation from the binary package at once (and ship it in tetex-doc-nonfree), we should not upload a new orig.tar.gz file for every documentation that we remove. > As for a practical solution, maybe simply using the GPL for the > documentation would maybe already do the trick, since the publisher > would have to provide the source code on the same medium, i.e. written. This will probably work, since the source code would also include fonts, cover art, etc. > I assume it's even possible to declare that the rights granted by the > GPL do not apply to print, or more specifically, to state that the > copyright holder grants and restricts the same rights for any digital > representation (like a PDF file) that the GPL gives for "object code", > but not for any printed representation which isn't covered by the GPL, > anyway. People on -legal told me this is probably not true; more specifically, the GPL v3 draft specifically states that "object code" is everything created from the source. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
