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

Re: latex-unicode sources and licensing

clone 635382 -1
retitle 635382 latex-unicode sources and licensing
severity 635382 serious

Cloning bug to separate the issues.

*New* bug is about the check for pdf mode in ucshyper.sty, and #635382
is about the availability of sources and license of ucshyper.

In the rest of this email, "upstream" is TeX-live, not TeX-live's
upstram for latex-unicode, which I have not identified btw.

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 11:46:45AM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 10:01:21AM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:

[...texlive-latex-extra sources contain...]

>> ucshyper.sty, which says it is generated from ucs.dtx, but does not
>> contain ucs.dtx. So

>> 2) This looks like an RC bug to me, not shipping the preferred form
>>    for modification in the source package.

> I've found trunk/Master/texmf-dist/tex/latex/ucs/ [... in upstream
> SVN ...], which *also* does not contain sources.

> On the other hand, the comments in the files point to
> http://www.unruh.de/DniQ/latex/unicode/, which is an HTTP redirect to
> http://wolfgang.jeltsch.info/software/latex-unicode/, which is a 404.

> So I'm out of ideas how to find the "real" sources.

Given that the true sources seem to have disappeared, I suppose we
could consider the .sty file to be its own source; it is a stretch,
but removing unicode support for (La)TeX would be rather
... damaging. I really, really vote for that the absolute upper limit
to what we would do about this is we move it to non-free, not remove
(I want good unicode support in my LaTeX!).

Maybe we could ask texlive if they know where to find sources, but I'm
not holding my breath.

> It is also [...more...] worrying that the files [... in that
> directory ...] say:

> %% This program is provided under the terms of the LaTeX Project Public
> %% License with some modifications.
> %% See the file LICENSE (http://www.unruh.de/DniQ/latex/unicode/content/LICENSE)
> %% for information.

> I can't find that file [.. neither in Debian sources nor in
> upstream...], and /usr/share/doc/texlive-latex-extra does not
> contain licensing information for it (I grepped for "ucs" and
> "unicode" and did not find anything). So how do we know whether it
> is DFSG-free software? What are the "some modifications" above?

Formally even: how do we know we can redistribute it in the way we


Reply to: