Re: teTeX Documentation Licenses
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
"BR" == Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org>
[Sorry if the following is redundant, but I want to make sure
we're all on the same page.]
To clarify, most of the ``documentation'' files I'm concerned with
here are generated from the same source as the ``style'' files
they document. LaTeX packages, like TeX itself, are generally
written in a ``literate programming'' style that mingles TeX/LaTeX
code with documentation. The contents of these ``dtx'' files
(generally one or more ``style'' files, with other possible
support or configuration files) are extracted by running LaTeX on
an ``ins'' file. The documentation is then generated by running
LaTeX on the dtx file. Thus, in most cases, both the
documentation and the code are covered by the same license, and my
assumption is that problems with the licensing of a document also
affect the code and the source file.
The license of choice for LaTeX packages is the LPPL, probably
mostly because of its use in licensing the ``core'' LaTeX
distribution and its prominent position on the LaTeX Project's
website [1] and in the LaTeX distribution (see modguide.dvi;
``texdoc modguide'').
Branden writes
BR> I've read the LPPL and I'm nervous about it, so I would
BR> not encourage the authors of these documents to adopt it.
After reading the LPPL (<http://www.latex-project.org/lppl.html>)
and previous discussions on debian-legal, I'm not entirely clear
on what makes you (and others) nervous about the LPPL, although I
can think of two major possibilities:
1. The source distribution requirement
We seem to believe that the source distribution requirement
is covered by our tetex-src package (which contains the
original, unmodified dtx and ins files for the packages we
distribute), so shouldn't be seen as that much of a problem.
2. Restrictions on modification
Presumably this one is the real sticking point. It seems to
me that the logic behind this restriction makes sense for
the core LaTeX packages -- the developers don't want to
receive complaints and bug reports about standard LaTeX
components that people might have modified and distributed
under the same name without making the modifications and
contacts clear.
It's less clear to me that this restriction is a good idea
for contributed packages. It ensures that a package can
only be modified by its original author (or someone she
authorizes) which is both a good thing (for stability and
consistency) and a bad thing (packages can become moribund
when their authors move on).
I would greatly appreciate additional comments/criticisms of the
LPPL, especially confirmation that my interpretation of the DFSG
issues are correct. I am working on e-mail messages to send to
the authors of the problematic packages, and I want to be able to
present some clear alternatives to the LPPL, which means being
able to explain why the LPPL is not necessarily the best choice
for every package.
Also, the recommended LPPL licensing statement (to be used in
source files) makes it clear that files can be considered to be
covered by version 1.2 of the LPPL or a later version. Has anyone
approached the LaTeX folks with a proposal to adjust the LPPL to
make it more clearly DFSG free? Should we? What changes would we
want?
As for the pure documentation files, I will definitely mention the
Open Publication License and the GNU Free Documentation License.
In some cases one of those licenses may be applicable.
One issue to be aware of, however, is that some of the problematic
documents consist of journal preprints or reprints and do not have
source available (even in some cases where the software
distribution they are part of is in the public domain). In these
cases, I'm not at all certain that the authors *could* grant more
open licensing terms even if they wanted to. I'm also not sure
that making source available for these types of documents is even
a good idea -- as preprints/reprints, they represent the way the
text originally appeared or was meant to appear in a published
journal. Modifying them would sever the connection.
A final issue is that some of the authors -- including those of
some of the most commonly used packages with problematic licenses
- -- have not been active for some time. We may be forced to drop
these files completely, which is likely to cause some annoyance
for our users. That annoyance may be spread to other teTeX users
on other platforms, however, because Thomas Esser (the upstream
teTeX author/maintainer) has shown a great deal of support and
enthusiasm for only including DFSG-free material in recent
releases.
Thanks again for your time,
Claire
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Man cannot be civilised, or be kept civilised by what he does in his
spare time; only by what he does as his work.
W.R. Lethaby
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
C.M. Connelly cmc@debian.org SHC, DS
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.6 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>
iD8DBQE8j/drzrFKeh3cmQ0RAkTFAKC5eD2PAUg3d1tl/9MFXnio9AyL5QCgzVIb
xAxvHYyvoj56HHwADUlnpJU=
=1vwW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: