Bug#345604: [tex-live] Re: ConTeXt documentation in "commercial" products
� wrote: Hans Hagen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I will add the following sentence to the readme: If you distribute \CONTEXT\ and related software on electronic media as part of \TEX\ distributions, you may also distribute the manuals in electronic form, preferable as provided by the maintainers of \CONTEXT. Does this, or the new Creative Commons license, also apply to older versions, in particular to the version included in teTeX 3.0? In this case we (Debian) could distribute the ConTeXt documentation in our non-free section (still non-free because we don't have the sources currently). And I wouldn't like to use the new version's documentation (with its CC license) and bundle it with the ConTeXt version in teTeX 3.0, since that would cause confusion. That's why I specifically ask whether this applies to the old version, too. With older i assume that you mean the pdf's (we started putting manual sources under svn recently)? Sure go ahead and distribute them. I don't think there was even any restriction in distributing the pdf's at least not from my side (they have been in the tex collections in separate trees anyway). The whole licencing issue with respect to manual sources is mostly there because it concerns sources. Hans - Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl - -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#345604: [tex-live] Re: ConTeXt documentation in "commercial" products
Hans Hagen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I will add the following sentence to the readme: > > If you distribute \CONTEXT\ and related software on electronic media > as part of \TEX\ distributions, you may also distribute the manuals > in electronic form, preferable as provided by the maintainers of > \CONTEXT. Does this, or the new Creative Commons license, also apply to older versions, in particular to the version included in teTeX 3.0? In this case we (Debian) could distribute the ConTeXt documentation in our non-free section (still non-free because we don't have the sources currently). And I wouldn't like to use the new version's documentation (with its CC license) and bundle it with the ConTeXt version in teTeX 3.0, since that would cause confusion. That's why I specifically ask whether this applies to the old version, too. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
Bug#345604: [tex-live] Re: ConTeXt documentation in "commercial" products
Karl Berry wrote: The main point of free documentation is to allow, in principle, someone who makes changes to the free software it describes to also update the documentation. Distributing pdf's doesn't allow that. Making a good-faith effort to distribute sources (even if not necessarily complete / guaranteed to run) does. i'd say: write a new or additional manual -) btw, the fact that tex distributions seems to differ slightly (just read messages on the context list about installing tex on linux) does not mean that those who change things also document things; in the end the questions come to the source of the program ... also, if users take pieces of manuals, rewrite it, make better manuals ... fine for me, as long as no-one bothers me ... my main point is that i don't want to be responsible for that and that i don't want to let users be confused about what version is 'the real one' Any interest in reconsidering? well, for a while now context users can download sources of manuals (more will follow) from our svn repository; if they change and patch fine, as long as they don't let it end up in the commercial publication domain (and thereby entering a real copyright mess); guess why i never published one of the manuals as book: i want copies to be freely available. I leave it to others to do that and as the licence says: potential authors are free to use the examples for that purpose (it's actually one of the reasons for making them available). if i generate an html page from an xml file, it has no source either). If you generate an html page from an xml file, the xml file is the source. i bet that there are pdf's (and maybe html's) in texlive with no sources -) (anyhow, as an escape one can always use pdftotext and then claim that he/she has clever macros that can turn the resulting text file into a nicely typeset pdf file) understand those tens of pages of legal stuff -) Well, the GPL is five pages typeset, but your point remains the same :). -) Hans - Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl - -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#345604: [tex-live] Re: ConTeXt documentation in "commercial" products
since there is never the guarantee Guarantees aren't necessary, in my mind. With context, there is probably no way to guarantee that anyone can ever get exactly the same result as you unless they come over to your office and duplicate your disks :). (Probably not even that would be enough.) The main point of free documentation is to allow, in principle, someone who makes changes to the free software it describes to also update the documentation. Distributing pdf's doesn't allow that. Making a good-faith effort to distribute sources (even if not necessarily complete / guaranteed to run) does. Any interest in reconsidering? if i generate an html page from an xml file, it has no source either). If you generate an html page from an xml file, the xml file is the source. understand those tens of pages of legal stuff -) Well, the GPL is five pages typeset, but your point remains the same :). Thanks, k -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
