Bug#345604: ConTeXt documentation in "commercial" products
retitle 345604 contains non-free documentation
thanks
Frank Küster <frank@kuesterei.ch> 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)
Reply to: