Bug#635382: latex-unicode sources and licensing
Norbert Preining prein...@logic.at wrote: Hi everyone, 1) Include that license in debian/copyright, document which part it applies to. Just to make one thing clear. *I* will not go down this road. I will *never* collect the license statements 15000+ files. [...] I take the license statement of the TeX Live compilation as reference ppint. Please don't overreact. Upstream has a fine mechanism to record licenses of packages and even individual files, and all we need to do is to find someone with write access to The Catalogue (like you or me) to record the information there - and it will find its way into Debian. Lionel is not aware of this mechanism, so it is only natural what he suggests. Which is essentially what we do, just not by firing up an editor on debian/copyright. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Sprecher B90/Grüne OV Miltenberg und Umgebung VCD Miltenberg, ADFC Aschaffenburg-Miltenberg Debian Developer (TeXLive) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#635382: latex-unicode sources and licensing
On Mo, 01 Aug 2011, Frank Küster wrote:
Please don't overreact. Upstream has a fine mechanism to record
licenses of packages and even individual files, and all we need to do is
Individual packages, yes, individual files, no.
to find someone with write access to The Catalogue (like you or me) to
record the information there - and it will find its way into Debian.
That is true.
Best wishes
Norbert
Norbert Preiningpreining@{jaist.ac.jp, logic.at, debian.org}
JAIST, Japan TeX Live Debian Developer
DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
ELY (n.)
The first, tiniest inkling you get that something, somewhere, has gone
terribly wrong.
--- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#635382: latex-unicode sources and licensing
On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 12:57:21PM +0900, Norbert Preining wrote: On Mo, 01 Aug 2011, Frank Küster wrote: Please don't overreact. Upstream has a fine mechanism to record licenses of packages and even individual files, and all we need to do is Individual packages, yes, individual files, no. As far as I can see, the licensing information in this case applies to the whole package, which should be (once it is in proper source format) just a small number of files, namely ucs.dtx, ucs.ins and a few perl scripts. -- Lionel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#635382: latex-unicode sources and licensing
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 11:02:39PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote: Lionel Elie Mamane lio...@mamane.lu wrote: So I'm out of ideas how to find the real sources. Given that the true sources seem to have disappeared, Hm, just googling for ucs.dtx (...) Now, why didn't that cross my mind is a fair question. There is a ucs.dtx at http://softbase.org/latex-unicode/ Ah yes, and that domain is owned by Wolfgang Jeltsch (the new maintainer, as you were saying). Thanks for that find. Now, with what Norbert said (will not bother about fixing a single LaTeX package) if we get Wolfgang Jeltsch to upload to CTAN *now*, then it will be in TeXlive 2012, so in.. wheezy+1, because wheezy will be frozen by then? Or did Norbert's remark apply only to patching it, not getting the source in the Debian source package? -- Lionel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#635382: latex-unicode sources and licensing
On Do, 28 Jul 2011, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
Now, with what Norbert said (will not bother about fixing a single
LaTeX package) if we get Wolfgang Jeltsch to upload to CTAN *now*,
then it will be in TeXlive 2012, so in.. wheezy+1, because wheezy will
And it will end up also in the TL2011 package I am doing now, because
they will be based on the tlnet of the last they, so running
updates of tlnet will be included.
That means as long as the original author uploads soon the will be included
in the TL2011 packages.
Best wishes
Norbert
Norbert Preiningpreining@{jaist.ac.jp, logic.at, debian.org}
JAIST, Japan TeX Live Debian Developer
DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
POPCASTLE (n.)
Something drawn or modelled by a small child which you are supposed to
know what it is.
--- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#635382: latex-unicode sources and licensing
Hi! Am 26.07.2011 12:27, schrieb Lionel Elie Mamane: [..] 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!). For the ftp-team the question is: What file would you edit, if you would need to do any modification on it? If it's feasible to edit the sty (even so it's not the original source), and you would edit the sty if you needed to make a change, then that's what we would consider to be the source. %% 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. I found http://web.archive.org/web/20050307171101/http://www.unruh.de/DniQ/latex/unicode/content/LICENSE but haven't read the content, yet. Best regards, Alexander -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#635382: latex-unicode sources and licensing
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 07:21:39PM +0200, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote: Am 26.07.2011 12:27, schrieb Lionel Elie Mamane: 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!). For the ftp-team the question is: What file would you edit, if you would need to do any modification on it? If it's feasible to edit the sty (even so it's not the original source), and you would edit the sty if you needed to make a change, then that's what we would consider to be the source. Sorry, I have not kept you in the loop. We found the new upstream maintainer, we found his darcs repository and it contains the true sources. So the point is moot. But FYI editing the .sty file is certainly feasible; it is roughly a portion of the .dtx file with literate programming comments stripped. And now that we have the .dtx file, we even see it does not contain _any_ comment for that part of the code! %% 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. I found http://web.archive.org/web/20050307171101/http://www.unruh.de/DniQ/latex/unicode/content/LICENSE but haven't read the content, yet. Upstream (that is, texlive, not the ultimate upstream maintainer of latex-unicode) actually had the license file in a place I had not looked at. The license is actually LaTeX project license plus additional authorisations, so no DFSG problem. So, on the Debian side we have to: 1) Include that license in debian/copyright, document which part it applies to. 2) Include the true source in the source package. The plan for that currently is to simply let it trickle downstream in its natural way: wait for the ultimate upstream maintainer (which I have prodded) to upload it to CTAN, and then it will end up in the next texlive update and then in the Debian package. -- Lionel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#635382: latex-unicode sources and licensing
Hi everyone, 1) Include that license in debian/copyright, document which part it applies to. Just to make one thing clear. *I* will not go down this road. I will *never* collect the license statements 15000+ files. If you want this, please remove TeX from Debian and all will be happy. I take the license statement of the TeX Live compilation as reference ppint. If anyone disagrees, please take over the tex packagibg or remove it from Debian! Norbert -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#635382: latex-unicode sources and licensing
Lionel Elie Mamane lio...@mamane.lu wrote: clone 635382 -1 retitle 635382 latex-unicode sources and licensing severity 635382 serious thanks Thank you for your work. So I'm out of ideas how to find the real sources. Given that the true sources seem to have disappeared, Hm, just googling for ucs.dtx gives some hits in comp.text.tex from this year, talking about taking over maintainership by Wolfgang Jeltsch. There is a ucs.dtx at http://softbase.org/latex-unicode/ Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Sprecher B90/Grüne OV Miltenberg und Umgebung VCD Miltenberg, ADFC Aschaffenburg-Miltenberg Debian Developer (TeXLive) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#635382: latex-unicode sources and licensing
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 10:01:21AM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: 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. Additionally, browsing the upstream SVN, I found neither ucs.dtx, nor ucshyper.sty, but probably I just didn't look in the right place. OK, I was confused by the viewvc interface, that doesn't show big directory listings on a single page, but breaks it into two. I've found trunk/Master/texmf-dist/tex/latex/ucs/, 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. Do you know? It is also worrying that the files 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, 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? -- Lionel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#635382: latex-unicode sources and licensing
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
