Re: Preprints/Reprints of Academic Papers in Packages

[Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <edmundo@rano.org>]

Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org>:

>     C> Many packages contain preprints or reprints of academic papers
>     C> as part of their documentation.  In many cases, there is no
>     C> ``source'' available for these documents -- they are
>     C> distributed as PostScript or PDF files.
> 
> One case that seems fairly clear to me is cases where the upstream
> doesn't have the source either.  If the upstream would be stuck
> editing the ps or pdf if they wanted to modify the document, then that
> document is its own source code at least under the GPL definition.

I agree that the PS or PDF should count as source if the original
source has been lost, but upstream not having the original source
isn't quite strong enough. I would guess that in many cases the
upstream author of the software doens't have the document source, but
someone else does.

I would also guess that in most cases the availability of source is
irrelevant, because the academic paper isn't available under a
DFSG-free licence anyway; most authors of academic papers don't want
other people distributing modified versions of them. This isn't a
serious restriction, because no one would want to do that anyway, but
it means that academic papers are generally not DFSG-free.

Edmund