Le Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 10:46:14AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert a écrit : > On 11208 March 1977, Charles Plessy wrote: > > > - despite the absence of latex sources one is allowed to take a > > html, pdf or ps editor and modify the old documentation in the > > .orig.tar.gz under the terms of the LGPL; > > "Despite the absence of c source one is allowed to take a .so file and a > editor[1] and modify the program in the .orig.tar.gz under the terms of > the LGPL". > > [1] whatever you prefer to edit binaries directly
> If you drop upstreams .ps/.pdf files and then just ship yours - thats fine. > Best thing of course is upstream shipping the right source. Well, I still think that there is a difference between a PDF file and a binary executable, and that in any case, a PDF file is not a "program" in the same sense as the commands and applications we use, but since this discussion already happened before, I will not try to change the mind of the local majority. Also, to my knowledge, there are no good PDF editors in Debian. So if remove the .ps/.pdf files, and keep the html files (which are modifiable and which you did not ask for removal in the mail I answer), it is acceptable for Debian? I will not replace the PDF/PS file because I am not interested in replacing something that already works, nor in looking for the correct stylesheet, nor in doing some uuencode/uudecode gizmo in this package. I would nevertheless do this effort if it would allow the upstream sources to enter Debian unmodified… Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy http://charles.plessy.org Wakō, Saitama, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]