Re: What to do when the LaTeX sources are missing, but an XML equivalent was rewritten from scratch ?
Le Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 10:46:14AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert a écrit :
> On 11208 March 1977, Charles Plessy wrote:
>
> > - despite the absence of latex sources one is allowed to take a
> > html, pdf or ps editor and modify the old documentation in the
> > .orig.tar.gz under the terms of the LGPL;
>
> "Despite the absence of c source one is allowed to take a .so file and a
> editor[1] and modify the program in the .orig.tar.gz under the terms of
> the LGPL".
>
> [1] whatever you prefer to edit binaries directly
> If you drop upstreams .ps/.pdf files and then just ship yours - thats fine.
> Best thing of course is upstream shipping the right source.
Well, I still think that there is a difference between a PDF file and a
binary executable, and that in any case, a PDF file is not a "program"
in the same sense as the commands and applications we use, but since
this discussion already happened before, I will not try to change the
mind of the local majority. Also, to my knowledge, there are no good PDF
editors in Debian.
So if remove the .ps/.pdf files, and keep the html files (which are
modifiable and which you did not ask for removal in the mail I answer),
it is acceptable for Debian? I will not replace the PDF/PS file because
I am not interested in replacing something that already works, nor in
looking for the correct stylesheet, nor in doing some uuencode/uudecode
gizmo in this package. I would nevertheless do this effort if it would
allow the upstream sources to enter Debian unmodified…
Have a nice day,
--
Charles Plessy
http://charles.plessy.org
Wakō, Saitama, Japan
Reply to: