Re: Free documents using non-free fonts - can they be in main?
* Nathanael Nerode: This is a main/contrib issue, *not* a main/non-free issue. Everyone agrees that the documents which use the non-free fonts are themselves free. In an abstract sense, maybe. But the concrete representation of that document which embeds proprietary fonts is non-free. It's just like statically linking to a proprietary version of libstdc++, really. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Free documents using non-free fonts - can they be in main?
* Frank Küster:
I'm wondering whether a document that's licensed under a DFSG-free
license, with TeX/sgml/whatever sources available and all, may use
non-free fonts. For example, the LaTeX source would contain
\usepackage{lucidabr}
and you'd be able to create the document from that source only if you
have either the commercial or otherwise non-free font installed, or you
replace/remove that line.
The resulting PDF would still be non-free: If it were free, I would be
allowed to reconstruct the embedded Type 1 fonts and use them freely
(according to DFSG-compliant license terms), which is clearly not the
case.
Therefore, you have to rebuild the documentation anyway, using free
fonts.
Re: Free documents using non-free fonts - can they be in main?
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 05 Mar 2006 12:03:00 +0100 Claus Färber wrote: Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote: The reason for this is that building (La)TeX documentation * depends on the right number and order of commands to be executed, which one has to find by trial and error (it's very rare that authors upload Makefiles, since usually they aren't needed much) * depends on settings in local configuration files, which may differ from package author to package author and from version to version. In other words, there is no _complete_ source code for the compiled version of the documentation, which violates DFSG #2 (even without the font issue). Well, it seems so... Sorry, how do you two come to that conclusion? There's on automated build system. Whether the upstream author writes \OnlyDescription in the dtx file or in his ltxdoc.cfg does not change whether source code is available. Whether he used teTeX 2.0.2 or 3.0 doesn't, either. If it is really so difficult to figure out how to rebuild, even for knowledgeable people, then, yes, something is missing. Come on, having a comfortable, or even a sane build system isn't a prerequisite for being free. Typsetting just isn't as automatable as compiling executables with autotools. Especially if you made changes to the sources, there's no alternative to actually looking at the resulting document with your eyes and your subjective aesthetic judgement. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
Re: Free documents using non-free fonts - can they be in main?
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 05 Mar 2006 12:03:00 +0100 Claus Färber wrote: Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote: The reason for this is that building (La)TeX documentation * depends on the right number and order of commands to be executed, which one has to find by trial and error (it's very rare that authors upload Makefiles, since usually they aren't needed much) * depends on settings in local configuration files, which may differ from package author to package author and from version to version. In other words, there is no _complete_ source code for the compiled version of the documentation, which violates DFSG #2 (even without the font issue). Well, it seems so... Sorry, how do you two come to that conclusion? There's on automated build system. Sorry, that should have been: There's *no* automated build system. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
Re: Free documents using non-free fonts - can they be in main?
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote: The reason for this is that building (La)TeX documentation * depends on the right number and order of commands to be executed, which one has to find by trial and error (it's very rare that authors upload Makefiles, since usually they aren't needed much) * depends on settings in local configuration files, which may differ from package author to package author and from version to version. In other words, there is no _complete_ source code for the compiled version of the documentation, which violates DFSG #2 (even without the font issue). Claus -- http://www.faerber.muc.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Free documents using non-free fonts - can they be in main?
On 05 Mar 2006 12:03:00 +0100 Claus Färber wrote: Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote: The reason for this is that building (La)TeX documentation * depends on the right number and order of commands to be executed, which one has to find by trial and error (it's very rare that authors upload Makefiles, since usually they aren't needed much) * depends on settings in local configuration files, which may differ from package author to package author and from version to version. In other words, there is no _complete_ source code for the compiled version of the documentation, which violates DFSG #2 (even without the font issue). Well, it seems so... If it is really so difficult to figure out how to rebuild, even for knowledgeable people, then, yes, something is missing. And that is really unfortunate. It should be fixed: a) either by asking upstream for the extra info b) or by rebuilding in a reasonable way *and* providing info about that reasonable way -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgp9SibnLsd71.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Free documents using non-free fonts - can they be in main?
olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: By the way is it that difficult to the package maintener to regenerate the document using free fonts? (the script texi2dvi do that nearly magically without having worrying about LaTeX rerun, makeindex, etc...) For a texinfo file, it's of course easy. For many LaTeX package documentation files, often created from dtx files, it is *that* difficult, as I already explained in this thread. I do not know the package in question but I am however confused. texi2dvi is able to compile standard latex code which are not texinfo (it look at the extension to know if it is laTeX or texinfo); you can also use the -l LaTeX option. Please care to read the older messages on that. Could you tell what the document is so that other people on this list might try. Have you tried yourself? dpkg -L tetex-doc tetex-doc-nonfree | grep /usr/share/doc/texmf Have you be in touch with the author (explaining the problem)? With some, yes. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
Re: Free documents using non-free fonts - can they be in main?
On Mar 5, 2006, at 03:06, Marco d'Itri wrote: The characters in the document are not subject to copyright. Yes, in the U.S. if all alleged computer programness of the font is gone and the glyphs are bitmapped or on paper but is that also true of embedded hinted fonts in PDF? (I thought such embedding is subject to license but foundries generally grant the permission to embed in final-form formats like PDF.) -- Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hsivonen.iki.fi/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Free documents using non-free fonts - can they be in main?
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, from the user's standpoint it's not a just comment out the \usepackage line... Rather, it's a 1. comment out the \usepackage line 2. fix the whole document so that it adapts to the free fonts 3. check if the result is acceptable, otherwise goto 2. Your claim that this is *not* a freedom issue, Honestly, I think this question is irrelevant. The binary version of the document is non-free, therefore I'll put it into tetex-docnon-free, and if we do have the sources, I'm going to put them in the same source package, even if the sources could go to contrib. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
Re: Free documents using non-free fonts - can they be in main?
Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 5, 2006, at 03:06, Marco d'Itri wrote: The characters in the document are not subject to copyright. Yes, in the U.S. if all alleged computer programness of the font is gone and the glyphs are bitmapped or on paper but is that also true of embedded hinted fonts in PDF? (I thought such embedding is subject to license but foundries generally grant the permission to embed in final-form formats like PDF.) AFAIK, if a font is included completely in the PDF doucment, i.e. not subsetted, it's technically possible to extract it again (and even if it is subsetted, you just have to collect enough documents to get all glyphs). So if it is technically possible to extract and reuse the font, but forbidden by the license, this is non-free. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
Re: Free documents using non-free fonts - can they be in main?
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 13:30:26 +0100 Frank Küster wrote: Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, from the user's standpoint it's not a just comment out the \usepackage line... Rather, it's a 1. comment out the \usepackage line 2. fix the whole document so that it adapts to the free fonts 3. check if the result is acceptable, otherwise goto 2. Your claim that this is *not* a freedom issue, Honestly, I think this question is irrelevant. The binary version of the document is non-free, therefore I'll put it into tetex-docnon-free, and if we do have the sources, I'm going to put them in the same source package, even if the sources could go to contrib. When I read your this is not a freedom issue claim, I got the impression you were thinking the binary version of the document could be considered DFSG-free and go in main, even if the used fonts were non-free. That's why I followed up with my counterclaim that it was indeed a freedom issue. If you were already convinced that such a document (compiled from DFSG-free source, but with non-free fonts) does not belong in main, then I must have misunderstood: I apologize. So, to summarize my opinion: A) the document can go in main, *if* it is adapted and rebuilt with DFSG-free fonts B) the document as is (i.e.: with non-free fonts), should *not* be distributed in main, but in non-free instead I would of course prefer option A, but you already stated that it's a pain, so, if you are not willing to do it, we are left with option B... -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpZ26RF4xtSl.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Free documents using non-free fonts - can they be in main?
I'm just going to note one important point about this whole thing. This is a main/contrib issue, *not* a main/non-free issue. Everyone agrees that the documents which use the non-free fonts are themselves free. The question is whether they depend on the non-free fonts. Suppose for the sake of argument that the documents do depend on the non-free fonts. If the documents are a small part of the overall package, and not essential for the package's functionality, then we allow the documents to be in main anyway. If the entire package depends on the non-free fonts, thenit is supposed to be in contrib. I always felt that the line between main and contrib was especially fuzzy. Personally, I care a lot more about the line between main/contrib and non-free. -- Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it. So why isn't he in prison yet?... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Free documents using non-free fonts - can they be in main?
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm just going to note one important point about this whole thing. This is a main/contrib issue, *not* a main/non-free issue. Everyone agrees that the documents which use the non-free fonts are themselves free. The question is whether they depend on the non-free fonts. Are you sure? Isn't it the same as a program that contains in its sources a binary blob that's copied as-is to the executable, and the binary blob is non-free? Just that here the binary blob, i.e. the embedded fonts, is not even in the sources? Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
Re: Free documents using non-free fonts - can they be in main?
(This is in reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED].Sorry about the thread-breakingthought I should reply to this quickly rather than waiting to get to a better computer.) Frank Kuester wrote: Are you sure? Isn't it the same as a program that contains in its sources a binary blob that's copied as-is to the executable, and the binary blob is non-free? Just that here the binary blob, i.e. the embedded fonts, is not even in the sources? You're right. I was wrong and confused. I somehow (I don't know how) misread your original message, and missed that you were discussing distributing the compiled document (with the fonts embedded) in the binary package. Yes, the generated .pdfs are definitely non-free, because they embed the non-free fonts. The source files are free. I think it's possible to generate .pdf files which do not embed the font (in at least some cases), right? That's what I was thinking of. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Free documents using non-free fonts - can they be in main?
Marco d'Itri wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can't see anything in the DFSG which would forbid it, so it looks free to me. With the note that the source files may need to be modified to allow being processed with the free fonts present in Debian, but this would not be a freeness issue. I think that the interpretation is that the DFSG applies to the fonts also. It applies to the font, but not to the rendered document. The characters in the document are not subject to copyright. Yes but the problem is that the source for the fonts are not available. So we do not have the complete source code of the document. The situation is somewhat similar of a public domain binary only software with source not available. Such softwares will not be regarded as free. Olive -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Free documents using non-free fonts - can they be in main?
By the way is it that difficult to the package maintener to regenerate the document using free fonts? (the script texi2dvi do that nearly magically without having worrying about LaTeX rerun, makeindex, etc...) For a texinfo file, it's of course easy. For many LaTeX package documentation files, often created from dtx files, it is *that* difficult, as I already explained in this thread. I do not know the package in question but I am however confused. texi2dvi is able to compile standard latex code which are not texinfo (it look at the extension to know if it is laTeX or texinfo); you can also use the -l LaTeX option. Could you tell what the document is so that other people on this list might try. Have you tried yourself? Have you be in touch with the author (explaining the problem)? Olive -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Free documents using non-free fonts - can they be in main?
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Even though _you_ may not want to take the time to fix errors, it is essential for freedom that _the user_ has the tools he needs to fix errors if he so desires. He has. Just comment out the \usepackage line that changes the font, and do the correction. This is really not a freedom issue. If it's just so easy to make the document rebuildable with free fonts, why don't you do that once and for all? mode=repeat because we would have to check the new line, paragraph and page breaking still makes sense, especially in the two cases that are a PDF presentation. /mode Fixing source in order to make it actually rebuildable with the declared Build-Depends should not be left to the users... mode=repeat tetex-base does not rebuild documentation and does not Build-Depend on tetex-bin. /mode Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
Re: Free documents using non-free fonts - can they be in main?
It seems the only good way to handle this is to get upsteam to change fonts or convince the font author to make the font availale under a free licence. Considering the particluar fonts used, that is quite unlikely. Font copyrights are a royal pain. :( -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Free documents using non-free fonts - can they be in main?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can't see anything in the DFSG which would forbid it, so it looks free to me. With the note that the source files may need to be modified to allow being processed with the free fonts present in Debian, but this would not be a freeness issue. I think that the interpretation is that the DFSG applies to the fonts also. It applies to the font, but not to the rendered document. The characters in the document are not subject to copyright. By the way is it that difficult to the package maintener to regenerate the document using free fonts? (the script texi2dvi do that nearly Yes. What about actually reading what the maintainer wrote? -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Free documents using non-free fonts - can they be in main?
On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 11:31:31 +0100 Frank Küster wrote: Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Even though _you_ may not want to take the time to fix errors, it is essential for freedom that _the user_ has the tools he needs to fix errors if he so desires. He has. Just comment out the \usepackage line that changes the font, and do the correction. This is really not a freedom issue. If it's just so easy to make the document rebuildable with free fonts, why don't you do that once and for all? mode=repeat because we would have to check the new line, paragraph and page breaking still makes sense, especially in the two cases that are a PDF presentation. /mode So, from the user's standpoint it's not a just comment out the \usepackage line... Rather, it's a 1. comment out the \usepackage line 2. fix the whole document so that it adapts to the free fonts 3. check if the result is acceptable, otherwise goto 2. Your claim that this is *not* a freedom issue, looks like saying that a statically-linked binary executable program is DFSG-free just because the program source is free, even if the used library is non-free: a user who wants to rebuild the binary using only things in main, can always choose a DFSG-free library that provides similar functionalities and adapt the program source to the new library (which, say, is API-incompatible with the non-free one). I'm not convinced by such an argument. I think that this *is* a freedom issue. -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpYQZuHbfECt.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Free documents using non-free fonts - can they be in main?
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scripsit Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] How do you fix errors in the document? By waiting for upstream to release a new version. Even though _you_ may not want to take the time to fix errors, it is essential for freedom that _the user_ has the tools he needs to fix errors if he so desires. He has. Just comment out the \usepackage line that changes the font, and do the correction. This is really not a freedom issue. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
Re: Free documents using non-free fonts - can they be in main?
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Frank K=FCster asked: Does debian-legal think that a document with a DFSG-free license and with sources available except for the embedded fonts is DFSG-free or not? I don't think a binary file follows the DFSG as a whole if it contains fonts which do not follow DFSG 2 (Source Code). That makes a 2:1 majority for is not suitable for main, and since that's my own conclusion, too, I'll accept this view. Sorry not to give the answer you wanted. Err, excuse me? The three mails by Marco, Mark and you were the first ones to give me an answer to the question I wanted answered, thank you for that. I didn't ask because I expected a is suitable for main, but just because I don't feel comfortable with legal stuff, and because I had a faint recollection that fonts are handled specially because of some special reason. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
Re: Free documents using non-free fonts - can they be in main?
Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Also, everything in orig.tar.gz must be DFSG free. On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Frank Küster wrote: Err, of course. That's why I ask. Does debian-legal think that a document with a DFSG-free license and with sources available except for the embedded fonts is DFSG-free or not? If the pdf includes non-free font implementations, then this is just plain non-free (and perhaps non-distributable if the source is GPL). The source will be LPPL in most cases, no problem here. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
Re: Free documents using non-free fonts - can they be in main?
Frank K=3DFCster asked: Sorry not to give the answer you wanted. Err, excuse me? [...] I missed the word sooner from the end of that and it seems to have totally changed the meaning. I didn't mean to suggest that you wanted a particular answer, just an answer. Sorry for being unclear, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Free documents using non-free fonts - can they be in main?
Marco d'Itri wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Err, of course. That's why I ask. Does debian-legal think that a document with a DFSG-free license and with sources available except for the embedded fonts is DFSG-free or not? I can't see anything in the DFSG which would forbid it, so it looks free to me. With the note that the source files may need to be modified to allow being processed with the free fonts present in Debian, but this would not be a freeness issue. I think that the interpretation is that the DFSG applies to the fonts also. Indeed in this case, you cannot regenerate the same pdf file with tools from main. Quite often I agree with you that the DFSG are interpreted too strictly and does not refer the original view of Debian. But in this situation, I cannot see how a document which is not regenerable from entirely free stuff could be considered free. By the way is it that difficult to the package maintener to regenerate the document using free fonts? (the script texi2dvi do that nearly magically without having worrying about LaTeX rerun, makeindex, etc...) Olive -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Free documents using non-free fonts - can they be in main?
olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think that the interpretation is that the DFSG applies to the fonts also. Indeed in this case, you cannot regenerate the same pdf file with tools from main. Quite often I agree with you that the DFSG are interpreted too strictly and does not refer the original view of Debian. But in this situation, I cannot see how a document which is not regenerable from entirely free stuff could be considered free. I agree. By the way is it that difficult to the package maintener to regenerate the document using free fonts? (the script texi2dvi do that nearly magically without having worrying about LaTeX rerun, makeindex, etc...) For a texinfo file, it's of course easy. For many LaTeX package documentation files, often created from dtx files, it is *that* difficult, as I already explained in this thread. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
Re: Free documents using non-free fonts - can they be in main?
On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 10:25:24 +0100 Frank Küster wrote: Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scripsit Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] How do you fix errors in the document? By waiting for upstream to release a new version. Even though _you_ may not want to take the time to fix errors, it is essential for freedom that _the user_ has the tools he needs to fix errors if he so desires. He has. Just comment out the \usepackage line that changes the font, and do the correction. This is really not a freedom issue. If it's just so easy to make the document rebuildable with free fonts, why don't you do that once and for all? Fixing source in order to make it actually rebuildable with the declared Build-Depends should not be left to the users... -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgporqtEbo6V8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Free documents using non-free fonts - can they be in main?
Hi Frank!
You wrote:
I'm wondering whether a document that's licensed under a DFSG-free
license, with TeX/sgml/whatever sources available and all, may use
non-free fonts. For example, the LaTeX source would contain
\usepackage{lucidabr}
and you'd be able to create the document from that source only if you
have either the commercial or otherwise non-free font installed, or you
replace/remove that line. Assuming that the original author has the
right to distribute and let re-distribute PDF files using that font
without limits, would it be okay for main to distribute the compiled
document (PDF) in the binary package, and the sources in the source
package?
I think not. AFAIK, the binaries in main must be built from the sources
in main, which wouldn't be possible in the case you're describing.
What's the problem with just using the normal Concrete TeX fonts?
--
Kind regards,
++
| Bas Zoetekouw | GPG key: 0644fab7 |
|| Fingerprint: c1f5 f24c d514 3fec 8bf6 |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] | a2b1 2bae e41f 0644 fab7 |
++
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Free documents using non-free fonts - can they be in main?
Bas Zoetekouw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Frank!
You wrote:
I'm wondering whether a document that's licensed under a DFSG-free
license, with TeX/sgml/whatever sources available and all, may use
non-free fonts. For example, the LaTeX source would contain
\usepackage{lucidabr}
and you'd be able to create the document from that source only if you
have either the commercial or otherwise non-free font installed, or you
replace/remove that line. Assuming that the original author has the
right to distribute and let re-distribute PDF files using that font
without limits, would it be okay for main to distribute the compiled
document (PDF) in the binary package, and the sources in the source
package?
I think not. AFAIK, the binaries in main must be built from the sources
in main, which wouldn't be possible in the case you're describing.
What's the problem with just using the normal Concrete TeX fonts?
That's not the point. In tetex-doc, we generally do *not* build the
documentation files from source, but instead use the ones included in
the orig.tar.gz, which in turn includes the author-provided versions
from CTAN. There are several reasons for that, some of which are
- tetex-base would have to build-depend on tetex-bin if we rebuild the
documentation
- we'd have to merge the upstream texmf.tar.gz (=tetex-base source
package) and texmfsrc.tar.gz (=tetex-src source package) into one
orig.tar.gz
- There's no automated way to reproduce the documentation exactly as the
author wants it, and once we would establish one, there would be no
way to detect whether a new upstream version changed that.
The reason for this is that building (La)TeX documentation
* depends on the right number and order of commands to be executed,
which one has to find by trial and error (it's very rare that
authors upload Makefiles, since usually they aren't needed much)
* depends on settings in local configuration files, which may differ
from package author to package author and from version to version.
So the author of a LaTeX package generates the documentation, looks at
it, adjusts their local configuration if necessary, and uploads the
package sources and the documentation PDF (CTAN requires this AFAIK),
but not local configuration files. I assume the CTAN admins would
reject uploads that include configuration files like ltxdoc.cfg,
because it would make CTAN's search facilities unusable for that
file.
As a consequence, you can't be sure to get the same document by simply
running pdflatex over the source file.
So, since we don't rebuild the documentation anyway, we just ensure[1]
that the files we include have a free license, and that the source is
complete.
So in the case of a document using a non-free font, it would be trivial
to free its source by simply commenting the line in the source. I'd
rather avoid that, because I think it bloats the diff.gz without adding
any value, but I wouldn't care much.
But the important question is whether we can distribute that *existing*
document in main.
Regards, Frank
Footnotes:
[1] Read: are about to ensure, see http://bugs.debian.org/345604
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)
Re: Free documents using non-free fonts - can they be in main?
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - There's no automated way to reproduce the documentation exactly as the author wants it, and once we would establish one, there would be no way to detect whether a new upstream version changed that. The reason for this is that building (La)TeX documentation * depends on the right number and order of commands to be executed, which one has to find by trial and error (it's very rare that authors upload Makefiles, since usually they aren't needed much) * depends on settings in local configuration files, which may differ from package author to package author and from version to version. So the author of a LaTeX package generates the documentation, looks at it, adjusts their local configuration if necessary, and uploads the package sources and the documentation PDF (CTAN requires this AFAIK), but not local configuration files. I assume the CTAN admins would reject uploads that include configuration files like ltxdoc.cfg, because it would make CTAN's search facilities unusable for that file. As a consequence, you can't be sure to get the same document by simply running pdflatex over the source file. This is an excellent reason for why the documentation *should* be rebuilt. How do you know that you can make a reasonable document unless you build it yourself? How do you fix errors in the document? As Bas wrote, all binaries must be built from source. This is one of many reasons why. Also, everything in orig.tar.gz must be DFSG free. Even if you just throw the file away and rebuild it. Cheers, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Free documents using non-free fonts - can they be in main?
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As a consequence, you can't be sure to get the same document by simply running pdflatex over the source file. This is an excellent reason for why the documentation *should* be rebuilt. How do you know that you can make a reasonable document unless you build it yourself? If the usual dtx mantra: pdflatex package.dtx makeindex -s gind.ist makeindex -s gglo.ist -o package.gls package.glo pdflatex package.dtx runs without errors, you know that you *can* make a reasonable document, but you have not necessarily just created one. How do you fix errors in the document? As Bas wrote, all binaries must be built from source. This is one of many reasons why. This has never happened for LaTeX documentation, and nobody has ever complained. The CTAN policy has recently been amended to require (or is it still encourage?) that authors include the ready-made PDF version of the documentation exactly because of the problems with local configuration. Furthermore, we simply won't be able to do the work for all those documents: $ dlocate -L tetex-doc | egrep '\.dvi\.gz|\.pdf\.gz' |wc -l 337 at least not in a reasonable timeframe. And it still doesn't answer my question whether we can distribute documents prepared with a non-free, distributable font. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
Re: Free documents using non-free fonts - can they be in main?
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Also, everything in orig.tar.gz must be DFSG free. Err, of course. That's why I ask. Does debian-legal think that a document with a DFSG-free license and with sources available except for the embedded fonts is DFSG-free or not? I don't want to hear technical comments whether it is desirable or doable to rebuild the documentation, but whether it is legally possible to distribute such documents. And, just for the curious, the particular example why I came to that question is a document that is a PDF presentation. With a font change, we'd have to rework all the spacing and page breaking, and probably rather put it into contrib (or non-free if that's the only example, since we already have a package with non-free stuff but none with contrib). Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
Re: Free documents using non-free fonts - can they be in main?
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I forgot to answer one question - please follow up to devel if you want to discuss this, since it isn't a legal issue. If the usual dtx mantra: pdflatex package.dtx makeindex -s gind.ist makeindex -s gglo.ist -o package.gls package.glo pdflatex package.dtx runs without errors, you know that you *can* make a reasonable document, but you have not necessarily just created one. How do you fix errors in the document? By waiting for upstream to release a new version. We have already enough work to do with the Debian packaging, identifying the LaTeX packages responsible for bugs that users report, contacting the maintainers etc. In some cases where the maintainers were MIA, we even helped to find a new person. But we really have no time to improve the documentation texts. If the documentation is under a DFSG-free license, the (new) maintainer is the person to do that. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
Re: Free documents using non-free fonts - can they be in main?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Err, of course. That's why I ask. Does debian-legal think that a document with a DFSG-free license and with sources available except for the embedded fonts is DFSG-free or not? I can't see anything in the DFSG which would forbid it, so it looks free to me. With the note that the source files may need to be modified to allow being processed with the free fonts present in Debian, but this would not be a freeness issue. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Free documents using non-free fonts - can they be in main?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think not. AFAIK, the binaries in main must be built from the sources in main, which wouldn't be possible in the case you're describing. This is not true and has never been true. The requirement is that it must be *possible* to build our packages only using packages in main, but not that it's mandatory to rebuild every part of them every time the package is built. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Free documents using non-free fonts - can they be in main?
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Also, everything in orig.tar.gz must be DFSG free. On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Frank Küster wrote: Err, of course. That's why I ask. Does debian-legal think that a document with a DFSG-free license and with sources available except for the embedded fonts is DFSG-free or not? If the pdf includes non-free font implementations, then this is just plain non-free (and perhaps non-distributable if the source is GPL). If it just includes a reference by name to a non-free font, it's free, but useless to Debian. I don't want to hear technical comments whether it is desirable or doable to rebuild the documentation, but whether it is legally possible to distribute such documents. Legally possible: yes. Useful to Debian: no. I'd say to put it in non-free or contrib even if it technically doesn't violate the DFSG. -- Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
Re: Free documents using non-free fonts - can they be in main?
Scripsit Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm wondering whether a document that's licensed under a DFSG-free license, with TeX/sgml/whatever sources available and all, may use non-free fonts. I think the source itself can be free (and, hence, can be in a source package in main), but I don't think we should ship formatted versions of it except in contrib. Alternatively, one could replace the font selection with a free one in the Debian diff (assuming that does not lead to unsightly spacing disasters) and ship a version formatted with free fonts. Assuming that the original author has the right to distribute and let re-distribute PDF files using that font without limits, would it be okay for main to distribute the compiled document (PDF) in the binary package, and the sources in the source package? I don't think it's OK to ship anything in a main binary that cannot be recreated from source using tools in main. -- Henning Makholm Det er jo svært at vide noget når man ikke ved det, ikke? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Free documents using non-free fonts - can they be in main?
Scripsit Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] How do you fix errors in the document? By waiting for upstream to release a new version. Even though _you_ may not want to take the time to fix errors, it is essential for freedom that _the user_ has the tools he needs to fix errors if he so desires. I think the you in the question was meant in the How does one fix errors sense. -- Henning Makholm Al lykken er i ét ord: Overvægtig! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Free documents using non-free fonts - can they be in main?
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 19:54:24 +0100 Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...] Assuming that the original author has the right to distribute and let re-distribute PDF files using that font without limits, would it be okay for main to distribute the compiled document (PDF) in the binary package, and the sources in the source package? I don't think it's OK to ship anything in a main binary that cannot be recreated from source using tools in main. I agree: I don't think either. -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpx4YzZ7cuAy.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Free documents using non-free fonts - can they be in main?
Frank K=FCster asked: Does debian-legal think that a document with a DFSG-free license and with sources available except for the embedded fonts is DFSG-free or not? I don't think a binary file follows the DFSG as a whole if it contains fonts which do not follow DFSG 2 (Source Code). Sorry not to give the answer you wanted. I don't want to hear technical comments whether it is desirable or doable to rebuild the documentation, but whether it is legally possible to distribute such documents. It may be legally possible to distribute such documents, depending on the terms of the fonts. I think it is a serious bug if they are in main. Hope that helps explain, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
