Bug#345604: ConTeXt documentation is non-free
On 02.01.06 Florian Weimer (f...@deneb.enyo.de) wrote: Package: tetex-doc Version: 3.0-11 Severity: serious The license is clearly non-free: | All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, | stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any | means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, | without prior written permission of the publisher. This bug has been opened against tetex-doc long ago. Since the release of squeeze not even Debian oldstable is affected any more, the doc has been moved to context-nonfree. Can we close that bug now? H. -- sigmentation fault signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#345604: ConTeXt documentation is non-free
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I guess the license is GPL-incompatible, but DFSG-free. And *that* is not a practical problem, since nobody would want to reuse the code from tex.web in a new project. But pdfTeX does, and it claims to be GPLed. That's a good point - but this shouldn't be discussed on the teTeX mailinglist, but with the web2c people (it's not an issue of pdftex only, most current implementations of TeX on unix(like) or Windows use web2c code which is GPL. I'll meet Martin Schröder, one of the pdfTeX developers, at the DANTE meeting in Berlin in the first week of March, and talk to him about the issue. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
Bug#345604: ConTeXt documentation is non-free
* Frank Küster: Florian, are you on a general search for non-free docs, and looking at more files in tetex-doc? Then please also send a Debbugs-Cc to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Woeful copyright file). I'm aware of that bug report, but think of it as a separate matter (especially the tex.web status and how this file can be used in GPLed programs is completely non-obvious to me).
Bug#345604: ConTeXt documentation is non-free
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Frank Küster: Florian, are you on a general search for non-free docs, and looking at more files in tetex-doc? Then please also send a Debbugs-Cc to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Woeful copyright file). I'm aware of that bug report, but think of it as a separate matter (especially the tex.web status #218195 is about the woeful copyright file, not the woeful copyright of a particular file... What we really need to do is to sort out which parts of teTeX are under which license, and document that clearly (and remove if necessary), and to that end collecting information about GFDLed stuff is important. Therefore I'd like to have the information in that bug, too. and how this file can be used in GPLed programs is completely non-obvious to me). I guess the license is GPL-incompatible, but DFSG-free. And *that* is not a practical problem, since nobody would want to reuse the code from tex.web in a new project. There have been a couple of attempts to reimplement the algorithms, though, and the latest one is under LGPL (ExTeX at http://www.extex.org/) Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
Bug#345604: ConTeXt documentation is non-free
* Frank Küster: #218195 is about the woeful copyright file, not the woeful copyright of a particular file... What we really need to do is to sort out which parts of teTeX are under which license, and document that clearly (and remove if necessary), and to that end collecting information about GFDLed stuff is important. Therefore I'd like to have the information in that bug, too. Okay, I understand. I guess the license is GPL-incompatible, but DFSG-free. And *that* is not a practical problem, since nobody would want to reuse the code from tex.web in a new project. But pdfTeX does, and it claims to be GPLed.
Bug#345604: ConTeXt documentation is non-free
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I guess the license is GPL-incompatible, but DFSG-free. And *that* is not a practical problem, since nobody would want to reuse the code from tex.web in a new project. But pdfTeX does, and it claims to be GPLed. That's a good point - but this shouldn't be discussed on the teTeX mailinglist, but with the web2c people (it's not an issue of pdftex only, most current implementations of TeX on unix(like) or Windows use web2c code which is GPL. I cannot say anything here; I don't even know exactly why source code under a BSD license can be included in a GPL project. But the license of tex.web is liberal as soon as you rename it (it's in the public domain AFAIK), and there's no need to rename it as long as the web2c application passes the trip test... Maybe you should ask Janet Casey from the FSF who has created the pdftex entry in the Free Software Directory. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
Bug#345604: ConTeXt documentation is non-free
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Ralf Stubner: | All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, | stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any | means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, | without prior written permission of the publisher. (from /usr/share/doc/texmf/context/manual/cont-eni.pdf.gz) This sounds bad, indeed. However, I think that the ConTeXt manual is actually covered by the general ConTeXt license in /usr/share/doc/texmf/context/base/mreadme.pdf.gz and /usr/share/doc/texmf/context/base/LICENSE.teTeX, which is free. But we lack the ConTeXt source code for those PDFs, do we? This means it still has to go into non-free. Obviously, unless we get the source code - will talk to Hans once I find time. Florian, are you on a general search for non-free docs, and looking at more files in tetex-doc? Then please also send a Debbugs-Cc to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Woeful copyright file). Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
Bug#345604: ConTeXt documentation is non-free
On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 07:27 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: Package: tetex-doc Version: 3.0-11 Severity: serious The license is clearly non-free: | All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, | stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any | means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, | without prior written permission of the publisher. (from /usr/share/doc/texmf/context/manual/cont-eni.pdf.gz) This sounds bad, indeed. However, I think that the ConTeXt manual is actually covered by the general ConTeXt license in /usr/share/doc/texmf/context/base/mreadme.pdf.gz and /usr/share/doc/texmf/context/base/LICENSE.teTeX, which is free. cheerio ralf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#345604: ConTeXt documentation is non-free
* Ralf Stubner: | All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, | stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any | means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, | without prior written permission of the publisher. (from /usr/share/doc/texmf/context/manual/cont-eni.pdf.gz) This sounds bad, indeed. However, I think that the ConTeXt manual is actually covered by the general ConTeXt license in /usr/share/doc/texmf/context/base/mreadme.pdf.gz and /usr/share/doc/texmf/context/base/LICENSE.teTeX, which is free. But we lack the ConTeXt source code for those PDFs, do we? This means it still has to go into non-free. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#345604: ConTeXt documentation is non-free
Package: tetex-doc Version: 3.0-11 Severity: serious The license is clearly non-free: | All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, | stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any | means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, | without prior written permission of the publisher. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
