Re: What to do when the LaTeX sources are missing, but an XML equivalent was rewritten from scratch ?
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007, Charles Plessy wrote:
> - There is no difference between a file for which the original
> author never publically published intermediate steps in its
> creation, and a file for wihch an intermediate has removed source
> code or formatting instructions that have been published earlier.
Correct. Whether source is published or not doesn't obviate DFSG 2.
> Somebody contributed me a latex file which is not the upstream one,
> but which contains the information from the html documentation.
> Would this file make the package acceptable for Debian ? Would the
> file need to be in the tarball, or shipping it in the .diff.gz would
> be sufficient?
Shipping that file in the diff.gz (or the orig.tar.gz, since you're
already repacking it) would be ok. It would also be ideal to
distribute the documentation in pdf, tex, and html built from that tex
file as well in the main package(s), assuming whoever contributed it
to you has also licensed it appropriately. The sourceless
documentation can then be distributed in non-free for anyone who wants
to look at it.
It seems intuitively obvious to me, which means that it might be wrong
-- Chris Torek