Re: texlive restrictive licence in main prevents derived works?
Hi Neil,
On Fr, 08 Mai 2009, Neil Williams wrote:
> How did that pass DFSG #3?
[...]
> 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?
Long discussion, please see debian-legal quite some time ago. The point
is that modifications are allowed but the modifyied work needs to be
renamed (like with tex the program) as long as the status of the
packages is "Maintained" plus prominent notices etc.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg00079.html
and many other links.
And, no, we will not rename about 1500 TeX-package names.
In fact it was always like that that we installed the doc files
unconditionally, only on user demand and after recommends were installed
by default we allowed ourselves after discussion with some upstream
authors to split the doc files out.
In fact, there are upstream authors (not texlive upstream, but of the
tex packages itself) that *force* us also in TeX Live (upstream) to
include the documentation *in*any*case* (currently only one such case).
Well, force, we could remove the packages, but that wouldn't be a good
idea since it is one very important.
So we are left with the current situation. It is not that bad because
auto-builders do not install recommends, the rest is up to the sysadmin.
Best wishes
Norbert
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at> Vienna University of Technology
Debian Developer <preining@debian.org> Debian TeX Group
gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASEBY (n.)
The stout metal instrument used for clipping labels on to exhibits at
flower shows.
--- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff
Reply to: