Vincent Fourmond writes ("Source package containing HTML-only form of texinfo doc"): > I am currently reviewing the qtoctave package (#430731) before > sponsoring it. The package is now in a pretty good shape, excepted with > a problem for which I would like to have some advice: the qtoctave > upstream source ships with HTML-only form of the octave's texinfo > documentation, which is licensed under GPL. This documentation is > actually not installed in any binary package (for many reasons).
Upstream are being foolish. > My first reaction was that shipping this was violating the GPL and > that the documentation should be removed. However, do you think it is > reasonable to just add a statement to debian/copyright indicating the > authors/copyright of this document and where to find its source code > should be enough ? This way, no repackaging would be needed. Unfortunately that's not good enough. Distributing the original tarball obviously involves distributing this html manual, but according to the GPL we are required to distribute the corresponding source code. We don't have a practical way to do that, so you'll have to repack the tarball to remove the errant parts. Note that this applies to _anyone_ who distributes the upstream qtoctave tarball without an exactly corresponding texinfo source for the octave documentation, _including qtoctave upstream_. Perhaps a mail to the FSF's GPL violation desk is in order ? They can probably have a quiet word with qtoctave upstream. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]