Bug#345604: ConTeXt documentation in commercial products
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)
Bug#345604: ConTeXt documentation in commercial products
Hi, 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 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. Btw, context documentation is part of the tex collection but not of tex live; the reason is that tex live only ships documentation for which a source is avaliable (and since there is never the guarantee that a source is complete, will run, has all graphic and font resources with it, it means that this criterium is hard to meet, i.e. what is a source: if i generate an html page from an xml file, it has no source either). Technically this means that a pdf file like mreadme.pdf will not be distributed. Afaik substantial context documentation and samples (over 100 meg in pdf form) are no part of linux distributions either. But i have absoutely no problems if the manuals are distributed (as long as it does not cost me time). Currently, context manuals are put (stepwise) under svn, and for practical purposes it's done on one of our internal machines with a copy on taco's website. However, there is no guarantee that each document runs as intended (i.e. there are fall backs when i use for instance non public fonts, or non public graphics, and i don't provide support for that). At some time I may put a zip archive with the manuals alongside the other context zips, but i wonder is there is any interest in those tens of megabytes. BTW, concerning GPL and manuals ... manuals are no programs and i like the simple and understandable CC ones; this is also the reason why i use the CC GPL variant, because then users (and i) don't have to read and understand those tens of pages of legal stuff -) 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: ConTeXt documentation in commercial products
Hello Hans, hello texlive list, 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). The problem is the prohibition to use it for commercial purposes. This is explained later as , | The non--commercial part is mostly a safeguard. We don't mind if user | groups distribute printed copies, publish (parts of) manuals and/or if | authors use example code in manuals and books about ConTEXt. ` However, if a bookshop like Lehmann's in Germany creates TeXLive (or Debian) CD-ROMs and sells them, this is commercial use - even if the price is hardly more than the production costs, and even if DANTE, the german user group, gets a bunch of them for free. After all, the purpose is to bring customers into the bookshop in the hope they also buy something else. On the other hand, I understand that Pragma wants to prevent anyone from printing and selling a book or booklet with the documentation. But I assume that it would be possible to do this without such restrictions. What do you think? 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. 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. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
