Re: License stuff for ConTeXt
On Fre, 22 Dez 2006, Taco Hoekwater wrote:
> I had to go through this for TeXLive proper as well. Can't you
Oh, sorry I missed this. Was it on the tex-live list? If yes, then all
this is my fault, if no, hmm, still sorry.
> Anyway, here is my list of remarks. I apologise beforehand if I
> sound a bit unfriendly here or there, I do not completely agree
No problem, I understand this. But OTOH see that we are bound to the
rules, too, even ...
> with DFSG (especially where it comes to requiring sources for
> documentation) and that tends to show through in my prose. Also,
... if I, too, don't agree about the documentation stuff. In fact I
agree half-way: I want to have the source code, even if some commercial
fonts are missing etc and would still consider this DFSG free. In fact I
started a discussion about it some time ago, since I believe it is
better to have (as an example):
where the pdf contains some commercial fonts. The user still has the
source code, can do anything with it, AND has a
beautiful/readable/whatever document for printing.
I am often missing some "common sense" in these discussion, but OTOH I
understand that on the larger scale of a whole distribution this is
something a bit more complicated.
Anyway, for your remarks!
> I am becoming worn out.
Sorry for that.
> >First cont-img.zip:
> All images in cont-img are GPLv2.
> >cont-fnt contains a huge bunch of vf/afm/tfm/map files. I assume that
> >they were generated from some fontinst source, but this is missing.
> No, they were not, and there is no "missing source". The vf/tfm/map
> were generated using the texfont program, which does not use source
> files. The afms were created using ttf2afm, which uses ttfs as source.
Thanks for clarification.
> >Anyway, there is no accompanying readme or whatsoever besides the one
> >for lucida.
> All the files in cont-fnt are GPLv2.
> >cont-ext seems to be ok besides a few points:
> > t-lettrine.tex does not have a license statement
> Yes, it does. Top of file. PD. Perhaps you missed another then?
> > t-urwgaramond, type-urwgaramond,
> Peter, can you add the license statement and re-upload? (it is GPL,
> according to Peter's own license statement on the contextgarden page
> for this module)
> > type-urwgothic: no license statement
> PD, but I forgot to add the statement, sorry.
> >A different thing is that the sources of many doc are not included:
> All the demo and doc files are generated by running texexec in
> "module" resp. "demo" mode on the actual macro sources, so the
> source is already included (just like .dtx files are the source
> of many latex packages' documentation)
AHHHHHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Umpf, didn't know this. Well, as
I said, I am new to ConTeXt ;-)
> >Best would actually be to put a files MANIFEST.GPL, MANIFEST.PD,
> >MANIFEST.CC-plus-ND into all the zip files. This way we could just
> >forget about all this and ONLY if you add a file you have to update the
> >Does this sound reasonable?
> Sure, but only if you can promise this *will be* the end of it.
> Otherwise, it only adds even more of a hassle (it seems whatever
> we do, it is never quite enough).
To be honest: This is the way MOST projects go. And with a statement
like this Debian Developers normally are more than content, they are
happy: It is NOT our job to check every single file. If upstream gives a
statement, we believe it. But it should be mentioned somewhere.
Yes, if you do this and keep it up to date, that would make it perfectly
simple for all of us:
- I just package everything which is DFSG compatible into context
- I just package the rest into context-nonfree
- The copyright statements includes the licenses as given and refers to
the relevant MANIFEST files.
As I said, it would help us (Debian) a lot, and I am sure it would also
help other distributions (TeX Live) a lot, because it is clear what can
be included and which conditions!
> >./doc/context/third/lettrine/W.pdf source missing
> It is an image. If it would make you feel better, I can
> convert it to png format, but then I would have to include
> the pdf as the source of the png, wouldn't I? ;-)
Well, the original source is I assume the respective MetaFont source of
Yannis Haralambous, but let's forget about it.
> >./doc/context/document/general/manuals/tiptrick.pdf NOSOURCE
> Do you prefer to have no file at all? Or is NOSOURCE better than
> nothing? Consider that if these PDF documents were created using
> InDesign, there would not even exist a source, anywhere.
As I said, I *cannot* include it into context, but I WILL it include, as
with the rest of the ConTeXt documentation into context-nonfree so that
people WILL have everything available.
The difference between normal and non-free in Debian is (only) that the
later one is non officially part of Debian, but is still distributed via
the Debian mirror system, so easily available.
> From the entire list of pdfs, I believe this is the only one that
> really does not have a source included where there could reasonably
> be expected to be a source avaible somewhere.
Thanks a lot.
> >CC-plus-ND the following:
> "Anything starting with koei" -> CC-ND is correct (like you said
> in another message). There was one in this list by mistake:
> > ./fonts/map/pdftex/context/original-adobe-euro.map
> that should be GPL.
Taco, thanks a lot for your work and all the best
Dr. Norbert Preining <firstname.lastname@example.org> Università di Siena
Debian Developer <email@example.com> Debian TeX Group
gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
A very thick and heavy drift of snow balanced precariously on the
edoge of a door porch waiting for what it judges to be the correct
moment to fall. From the ancient Greek legend 'The Treewofe of
--- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff