Bug#346354: AW: Bug#346354: Is distribution of the maxdb-doc package a GPL violation?
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 03:46:18PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote: > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 05:35:51AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > I have verfified that the actual sources for the generated HTML are > > > > Microsoft Word documents and that those will not be > > > > distributed. Does the mean that the maxdb-doc package will have to > > > > be pulled from the repository? > > > Yes, unless you get a license exemption from the copyright holder > > > allowing Debian and its mirrors to distribute the HTML as is. They > > > will probably agree. In that case, it goes into non-free. > > It's not obvious to me that either the license exemption or the non-free > > categorization are necessary here. GPL requires the "preferred form for > > modification", which for most people working on derivative works would > > probably *not* be the Word docs? > The people actually doing modifications use the Word format, not the > HTML format. It seems clear to me that the Word format is > "preferred". I prefer html over Word. If I modify the document, I'm going to modify the html, not the Word document. (Not just because I don't have the Word doc, but because I think Word docs are a lousy source format.) To my understanding, the only thing required to show that a certain file format is the "preferred form" is to use it as the basis for modifications. This seems like a pretty easy standard for the package maintainer to meet, if indeed the html format is the preferred form. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#346354: AW: Bug#346354: Is distribution of the maxdb-doc package a GPL violation?
Steve Langasek wrote: > On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 05:35:51AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>> I have verfified that the actual sources for the generated HTML are >>> Microsoft Word documents and that those will not be >>> distributed. Does the mean that the maxdb-doc package will have to >>> be pulled from the repository? > >> Yes, unless you get a license exemption from the copyright holder >> allowing Debian and its mirrors to distribute the HTML as is. They >> will probably agree. In that case, it goes into non-free. > > It's not obvious to me that either the license exemption or the non-free > categorization are necessary here. GPL requires the "preferred form for > modification", which for most people working on derivative works would > probably *not* be the Word docs? As I understand it, "preferred form for modification" means the preferred form by a person who made modifications (in other words, upstream), not the preferred form of those who would like to make modifications (in other words, downstream). In any case, I'd sooner edit a Word document (using OO.o, Abiword, or similar) than the "HTML" that Word outputs. - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#346354: AW: Bug#346354: Is distribution of the maxdb-doc package a GPL violation?
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 05:35:51AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > I have verfified that the actual sources for the generated HTML are > > > Microsoft Word documents and that those will not be > > > distributed. Does the mean that the maxdb-doc package will have to > > > be pulled from the repository? > > > Yes, unless you get a license exemption from the copyright holder > > allowing Debian and its mirrors to distribute the HTML as is. They > > will probably agree. In that case, it goes into non-free. > > It's not obvious to me that either the license exemption or the non-free > categorization are necessary here. GPL requires the "preferred form for > modification", which for most people working on derivative works would > probably *not* be the Word docs? The people actually doing modifications use the Word format, not the HTML format. It seems clear to me that the Word format is "preferred". Cheers, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#346354: AW: Bug#346354: Is distribution of the maxdb-doc package a GPL violation?
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 05:35:51AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I have verfified that the actual sources for the generated HTML are > > Microsoft Word documents and that those will not be > > distributed. Does the mean that the maxdb-doc package will have to > > be pulled from the repository? > Yes, unless you get a license exemption from the copyright holder > allowing Debian and its mirrors to distribute the HTML as is. They > will probably agree. In that case, it goes into non-free. It's not obvious to me that either the license exemption or the non-free categorization are necessary here. GPL requires the "preferred form for modification", which for most people working on derivative works would probably *not* be the Word docs? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#346354: AW: Bug#346354: Is distribution of the maxdb-doc package a GPL violation?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I have verfified that the actual sources for the generated HTML are > Microsoft Word documents and that those will not be > distributed. Does the mean that the maxdb-doc package will have to > be pulled from the repository? Yes, unless you get a license exemption from the copyright holder allowing Debian and its mirrors to distribute the HTML as is. They will probably agree. In that case, it goes into non-free. Sorry for the extra work. Cheers, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#346354: AW: Bug#346354: Is distribution of the maxdb-doc package a GPL violation?
Hi, >> >> This seems to be a problem only because the GPL is used... Would the >> files be under a less restrictive licence we would be perfectly OK >> distributing them as is... > >Sort of. Debian requires source for everything that it distributes in >main. If it were not GPL'd, it would still have to go into non-free. > I have verfified that the actual sources for the generated HTML are Microsoft Word documents and that those will not be distributed. Does the mean that the maxdb-doc package will have to be pulled from the repository? Best wishes, Martin. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
