On Fri, 8 May 2009 12:33:15 +0200 Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at> wrote: > On Fr, 08 Mai 2009, Neil Williams wrote: > > TeX docs should only be installed on systems where users need to write > > TeX - any dependencies that bring in TeX docs merely to support > > Come on. That we do NOT install the docs by default is already a > concession. We could stop this discussion and I kill all the -doc > pakcages and include the doc files unconditionally into the packages, > due to the requirements of the LPPL. How did that pass DFSG #3? > Do you prefer that? Umm, I prefer DFSG compatibility and the ability to modify the source and distribute the derived version - including that ability to modify by judicious use of 'rm'. If texlive ever gets into Emdebian, the docs will be stripped from the packages without user interaction. Full stop. :-) (Indeed, every file in /usr/share/doc/ is unilaterally and unambiguously erased - the copyright file is retained and compressed.) > The bottom line is that *without* user interaction the documentation > files *HAVE*TO*BE*INSTALLED*. Full stop. Then that, to me, makes the package non-free. > From the LPPL: > /------- > | 2. You may distribute a complete, unmodified copy of the Work as you > | received it. Distribution of only part of the Work is considered > | modification of the Work, and no right to distribute such a Derived > | Work may be assumed under the terms of this clause. > \------- DFSG 3: Derived Works The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software. ? Huh ? How did that get into main? -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgp5ZcJvFl48r.pgp
Description: PGP signature