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

Re: How to deal with teTeX's and texlive's RC licensing bugs

On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 12:49:14PM +0200, Norbert Preining wrote:

> On Don, 28 Sep 2006, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > A statement that "the work must be DFSG-compliant to be accepted" is not the
> > same thing as saying "this tarball is distributed under license <foo>". 
> > It's the latter that introduces ambiguity.

> To cite from TeX live's "COPYING CONDITIONS":

> ------
> To the best of our knowledge, all software in this distribution is
> freely redistributable (libre, that is, not necessarily gratis), within
> the Free Software Foundation's definition and Debian Free Software
> Guidelines.  If you find any non-free files included, please contact us
> (references given below).
> -------

> What does this mean?

It's not a license statement, that's for sure.  It's a statement that
someone *thinks* the works are all DFSG free; it is not a statement from a
licensor that the works are all distributed under a *specific* license which
is DFSG-free.

So a claim that "everything is DFSG-compliant" when, say, one of the styles
is known to be distributed under a license prohibiting modification is a
false statement, not a licensing ambiguity.

That doesn't mean texlive needs a full license audit before release, any
more than any other package does; it does mean that any license problems you
find don't get a pass for etch just because of this statement.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Reply to: