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

Bug#473216: texlive-latex-extra: foilhtml.sty undistributable?

Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it> wrote:

> Mmmh, I am not overly familiar with the LPPL 1.3, unfortunately (I have
> not yet opened that can of worms...).
> First of all, I cannot find it in texlive packages.

It's even included multiple times (which is a bug, too, of course), for
example in texlive-latex-base-doc (lppl.txt). Which is a buggy place...

> It really should be copied into debian/copyright files, as mandated by
> Debian Policy.

Yes, and we should switch the copyright file from our own invented
format to the consensus machine-readable format - we create it
automatically, anyway.

> Apart from this, I cannot fully understand your objection, anyway.
> Do you mean that the LPPL has a definition of source that does not
> allow changing its form?

If you want to discuss specific aspects of the LPPL, I think you'd

- read it carefully first

- read the (quite lengthy) discussions on debian-legal about it

- discuss it with people who are interested in that, e.g. on

  Myself, I just take it for granted that a license which has been
  drafted together by the LaTeX team and some debian-legal regulars, and
  been reviewed and finally approved on that list, is DFSG-free. And I
  have no interest in discussing this; we have indeed more severe
  licensing problems in texlive; the woeful copyright file is just a
  symptom of that.

>> Of course, if you apply the same patch, including versin information, to
>> both files and don't recreate the generated file, no one can prove that
>> you didn't abide by the wording of the license, and for sure you did
>> follow the spirit.
> What if my preferred form for making modifications to foilhtml.sty is
> *really* the .sty format, rather than its original source?
> I mean, what if I *honestly* prefer modifying the .sty file directly?

That sounds to me a bit like the "What if I prefer to modify the
Postscript file directly?" argument which has for sure been brought up
when people recommended the GPL, a source-aware license, for

> %% Copyright Boris Veytsman 1997
> That's not really recent.
> Have you got any means to get in touch with the copyright holder (that
> is to say, a currently active e-mail address)?

Not without researching; the TeX developer mailinglists are a
surprisingly well-working source for such information...

Regards, Frank

Frank Küster
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)

Reply to: