clone 635382 -1 retitle 635382 latex-unicode sources and licensing severity 635382 serious thanks
Cloning bug to separate the issues. *New* bug is about the check for pdf mode in ucshyper.sty, and #635382 is about the availability of sources and license of ucshyper. In the rest of this email, "upstream" is TeX-live, not TeX-live's upstram for latex-unicode, which I have not identified btw. On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 11:46:45AM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: > On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 10:01:21AM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: [...texlive-latex-extra sources contain...] >> ucshyper.sty, which says it is generated from ucs.dtx, but does not >> contain ucs.dtx. So >> 2) This looks like an RC bug to me, not shipping the preferred form >> for modification in the source package. > I've found trunk/Master/texmf-dist/tex/latex/ucs/ [... in upstream > SVN ...], which *also* does not contain sources. > On the other hand, the comments in the files point to > http://www.unruh.de/DniQ/latex/unicode/, which is an HTTP redirect to > http://wolfgang.jeltsch.info/software/latex-unicode/, which is a 404. > So I'm out of ideas how to find the "real" sources. Given that the true sources seem to have disappeared, I suppose we could consider the .sty file to be its own source; it is a stretch, but removing unicode support for (La)TeX would be rather ... damaging. I really, really vote for that the absolute upper limit to what we would do about this is we move it to non-free, not remove (I want good unicode support in my LaTeX!). Maybe we could ask texlive if they know where to find sources, but I'm not holding my breath. > It is also [...more...] worrying that the files [... in that > directory ...] say: > %% This program is provided under the terms of the LaTeX Project Public > %% License with some modifications. > %% See the file LICENSE > (http://www.unruh.de/DniQ/latex/unicode/content/LICENSE) > %% for information. > I can't find that file [.. neither in Debian sources nor in > upstream...], and /usr/share/doc/texlive-latex-extra does not > contain licensing information for it (I grepped for "ucs" and > "unicode" and did not find anything). So how do we know whether it > is DFSG-free software? What are the "some modifications" above? Formally even: how do we know we can redistribute it in the way we do. -- Lionel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org