Re: License stuff for ConTeXt
Hi Norbert,
I had to go through this for TeXLive proper as well. Can't you
just ask Karl Berry cq. do what TexLive does (since it claims
to be Debian-compatible)?
Anyway, here is my list of remarks. I apologise beforehand if I
sound a bit unfriendly here or there, I do not completely agree
with DFSG (especially where it comes to requiring sources for
documentation) and that tends to show through in my prose. Also,
I am becoming worn out.
First cont-img.zip:
All images in cont-img are GPLv2.
cont-fnt contains a huge bunch of vf/afm/tfm/map files. I assume that
they were generated from some fontinst source, but this is missing.
No, they were not, and there is no "missing source". The vf/tfm/map
were generated using the texfont program, which does not use source
files. The afms were created using ttf2afm, which uses ttfs as source.
Anyway, there is no accompanying readme or whatsoever besides the one
for lucida.
All the files in cont-fnt are GPLv2.
cont-ext seems to be ok besides a few points:
t-lettrine.tex does not have a license statement
Yes, it does. Top of file. PD. Perhaps you missed another then?
t-urwgaramond, type-urwgaramond,
Peter, can you add the license statement and re-upload? (it is GPL,
according to Peter's own license statement on the contextgarden page
for this module)
type-urwgothic: no license statement
PD, but I forgot to add the statement, sorry.
A different thing is that the sources of many doc are not included:
All the demo and doc files are generated by running texexec in
"module" resp. "demo" mode on the actual macro sources, so the
source is already included (just like .dtx files are the source
of many latex packages' documentation)
Best would actually be to put a files MANIFEST.GPL, MANIFEST.PD,
MANIFEST.CC-plus-ND into all the zip files. This way we could just
forget about all this and ONLY if you add a file you have to update the
MANIFEST.*.
Does this sound reasonable?
Sure, but only if you can promise this *will be* the end of it.
Otherwise, it only adds even more of a hassle (it seems whatever
we do, it is never quite enough).
I attach the MANFIEST.$zipfile to these email where I added some
comments.
./doc/context/third/bnf/t-bnf.pdf NOSOURCE
Not so, because:
./tex/context/third/bnf/t-bnf.tex
this is the source.
./doc/context/third/lettrine/W.pdf source missing
It is an image. If it would make you feel better, I can
convert it to png format, but then I would have to include
the pdf as the source of the png, wouldn't I? ;-)
./doc/context/document/general/manuals/tiptrick.pdf NOSOURCE
Do you prefer to have no file at all? Or is NOSOURCE better than
nothing? Consider that if these PDF documents were created using
InDesign, there would not even exist a source, anywhere.
From the entire list of pdfs, I believe this is the only one that
really does not have a source included where there could reasonably
be expected to be a source avaible somewhere.
CC-plus-ND the following:
./doc/fonts/hoekwater/koeieletters/koeieletters.rme
"Anything starting with koei" -> CC-ND is correct (like you said
in another message). There was one in this list by mistake:
> ./fonts/map/pdftex/context/original-adobe-euro.map
that should be GPL.
Best,
Taco
Reply to: