Re: sourceless PDF files, license and DFSG-freeness
Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at> wrote:
> On So, 31 Jan 2010, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
>> > Hm, I am sure that in the past we excluded PDF documentation because
>> > there was no source for them. Why did we do that?
>> >
>> > - Because the PDF was under GPL or GFDL, licenses which explicitly
>> > requires source distribution? Then it fits into what Steve thinks.
>> >
>> > - Because the PDF was under LPPL? I'm not sure whether the LPPL requires
>> > source - it doesn't do so explicitly, but it always assumes a
>> > difference between compiled and not-compiled work, and assumes the
>> > existenc of the not-compiled work.
>> >
>> > In this case, it might be that we were just fooled by some license
>> > zealots and could just have kept the files. The same is true if the
>> > PDF has some other license that doesn't require source.
>>
>> I don't know either... maybe it's DFSG?
>>
>> 2 Source Code
>>
>> The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in
>> source code as well as compiled form.
>>
>> Don't know if program was interpreted as "everything the damn binary
>> ships" :)
>
> Yes, that was the stance in many cases. I had discussions on that matter,
> and people said that if one cannot recreate the pdf with free tools
> we cannot include them.
Yes, this is what I remembered, too. But now Steve (someone who usually
knows what he's saying AFAICT) claims that for documentation, source was
never required by the ftp-masters (unless the license of the file
requires sourceful distribution).
So I would like to know: Did we really only have examples where the
license required sourceful distribution, or did we also remove PDF files
that simply lacked (some part of) the source? And if yes, who was
involved back then? Random bug reporters, debian-legal, or even the
release team?
> One candidate is the font-installation-guide.pdf, which uses commercial
> fonts. We even have the source code, but we cannot include the
> pdf as it cannot be recreated.
I guess that here some people start arguing that a PDF is more than text
and contains programatic information. Well, to me it is clearly
documentation, and I would like to come back to Steve with this issue.
A bug number, anyone?
(wasn't the beamer documentation an other example?)
> Furthermore, be reminded that also we as upstream do NOT include .pdfs
> that do not come with source.
I don't say that it makes sense. I just want to clarify what is
Debian's stance on this.
Regards, Frank
--
Dr. Frank Küster
Debian Developer (TeXLive)
VCD Aschaffenburg-Miltenberg, ADFC Miltenberg
B90/Grüne KV Miltenberg
Reply to: