[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

texlive restrictive licence in main prevents derived works?



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: pgpUm6y6KZqhW.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: