[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 09:35:11AM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:

> > Have I overlooked any other outstanding issues in these bugs, or missed
> > important details about any of the files?

> Not in the bugs, but since this all got very confusing, I stopped
> forwarding to the bug all problems I found.  They are all collected in
> the Wiki at http://wiki.debian.org/ProblematicCtanPackages

> The ones not discussed so far are:

> ,----
> | euler: LPPL according changelog, but no indication in file.
> | 
> | adrconv: No license at all for the documentation
> | 
> | antp: PD according to catalogue, no statement in the files, no
> |       sources; contacted upstream
> | 
> | citesort.sty: no license statement
> | 
> | index.doc: no license statement - probably unused
> | 
> | dinbrief: lppl 1.1+, but with additional restrictions which are non-free
> | 
> | a4wide.sty: no license statement, obsolete, uses a4.sty, should be removed
> | 
> | bar.sty: no license statement except "don't modify", latex2.09, authors
> |          are no longer at their listed affiliation => should be removed
> `----

These seem to have all been analyzed already.  I guess there's no need for
me to say which ones are RC or not, the proposed guidelines should be clear

If not, please ask.

> > Once the files in question have been removed, are these things that can be
> > checked with rebuild tests?  The main problem to worry about is packages
> > which need a style that's been removed and fail to build, correct?

> Yes, that's the main concern, and it should be testable by rebuild
> tests.  The other problem is with packages that have an ordinary
> Depends, here tests cannot be automated.  However, if the package is
> actually used by some people, but problems aren't detected immediately
> because the removed files are used rarely and a problem shows up only in
> certain circumstances, then I think the package can stay in main and
> only has a normal or important bug, correct?  Bugs in mostly unused
> packages are likely to slip through, anyway...

Right, if a package (or feature of a package) doesn't get enough use for
these bugs to be caught during a 1-2 month freeze, well, the bug will be
there until someone does use it and reports the problem.

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: