Re: What to do when the LaTeX sources are missing, but an XML equivalent was rewritten from scratch ?

[Josselin Mouette]

Le lundi 19 novembre 2007 à 08:08 +0100, Norbert Preining a écrit :
> - the pdf can be regenerated albeit with minor quality.
> - shipping the higher quality document helps the user more than shipping
>   a lower quality document

Why would the XML-based document be lower quality? If dblatex is used
for generating the PDF, it should look just as good.

-- 
 .''`.
: :' :  We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code.
`. `'   We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to
  `-our own. Resistance is futile.


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message	numériquement signée

Re: What to do when the LaTeX sources are missing, but an XML equivalent was rewritten from scratch ?

[Norbert Preining]

On Mo, 19 Nov 2007, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > - the pdf can be regenerated albeit with minor quality.
> > - shipping the higher quality document helps the user more than shipping
> >   a lower quality document
> 
> Why would the XML-based document be lower quality? If dblatex is used
> for generating the PDF, it should look just as good.

I was not talking about this specific document, but take a doc that
ships with commercial fonts used, say Optima. The source code is
present and can be reused for other projects, still the users have the
nicer original document.

I consider this ok for Debian.

Best wishes

Norbert

---
Dr. Norbert Preining <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Vienna University of Technology
Debian Developer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian TeX Group
gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094  fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76  A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
---
GREAT TOSSON (n.)
A fat book containing four words and six cartoons which cost £6.95.
--- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: What to do when the LaTeX sources are missing, but an XML equivalent was rewritten from scratch ?

[Joerg Jaspert]

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

Not good. :)

>  - the content of the source-orphan files is available in another source
>format which could be used to generate equivalent documents that
>would only differ by their formatting;

> could such a package be qualified for the main archive?

If you drop upstreams .ps/.pdf files and then just ship yours - thats fine.
Best thing of course is upstream shipping the right source.

-- 
bye Joerg
 HE, we had sex in Debian for many years, yes, before I put a stop
  to it


pgp3VSUpkjE1p.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: What to do when the LaTeX sources are missing, but an XML equivalent was rewritten from scratch ?

[Joerg Jaspert]

On 11208 March 1977, Norbert Preining wrote:

> Other questions arising from this:
> What if upstream ships a pdf AND the source, but the generation of the
> pdf relies on not-available fonts. 

If you know it -> contrib. (And one should know, as one should try
rebuilding it at least once).

> I would still ship this pdf into my Debian package out of the following
> reasons:
> - the source is present, no freedom is taken: The document is present,
>   the source code.
> - the pdf can be regenerated albeit with minor quality.

Thats different to "relies on not-available fonts".
Relies == cant be build without them.

> - shipping the higher quality document helps the user more than shipping
>   a lower quality document
> Is this something which would be accepted?

Not if I can somehow detect it.

main is pretty simply defined as
"must not require a package outside of main for compilation or execution
(thus, the package must not declare a "Depends", "Recommends", or
"Build-Depends" relationship on a non-main package),"

which your package would do, if it can't build without some extra fonts.
It could go into contrib.

-- 
bye Joerg
A.D. 1517:
Martin Luther nails his 95 Theses to the church door and is promptly
moderated down to (-1, Flamebait).


pgpOCeNZ7RjKO.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: What to do when the LaTeX sources are missing, but an XML equivalent was rewritten from scratch ?

[Charles Plessy]

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]

Re: What to do when the LaTeX sources are missing, but an XML equivalent was rewritten from scratch ?

[Norbert Preining]

Hi Jörg,

On Mo, 19 Nov 2007, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > - the source is present, no freedom is taken: The document is present,
> >   the source code.
> > - the pdf can be regenerated albeit with minor quality.
> 
> Thats different to "relies on not-available fonts".
> Relies == cant be build without them.

Recreating the exact same pdf (modulo creation date etc) relies on these
fonts. Recreating the same document with different fonts, and thus with
different layout and appearance is possible.

> > - shipping the higher quality document helps the user more than shipping
> >   a lower quality document
> > Is this something which would be accepted?
> 
> Not if I can somehow detect it.
> 
> main is pretty simply defined as
> "must not require a package outside of main for compilation or execution
> (thus, the package must not declare a "Depends", "Recommends", or
> "Build-Depends" relationship on a non-main package),"

Neither of this is hurt AFAIS. Compilation can be done, execution
(viewing) can be done (the fonts are subsetted into the pdf files, so no
need for them to be installed).

Removing the high-quality doc would only take away an option of the
user.

Take for example a document providing a showcase of fonts for math. It
includes about a dozen of free fonts and commercial fonts. The user can
view the source code, can view the pre-made pdf and choose what he
wants, he can reuse the code in the document for other docs or tests or
whatever. 

Best wishes

Norbert

---
Dr. Norbert Preining <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Vienna University of Technology
Debian Developer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian TeX Group
gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094  fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76  A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
---
CANNOCK CHASE (n.)
In any box of After Eight Mints, there is always a large number of
empty envelopes and no more that four or five actual mints. The
cannock chase is the process by which, no matter which part of the box
often, you will always extract most of the empty sachets before
pinning down an actual minot, or 'cannock'. The cannock chase also
occurs with people who put their dead matches back in the matchbox,
and then embarrass themselves at parties trying to light cigarettes
with tree quarters of an inch of charcoal. The term is also used to
describe futile attempts to pursue unscrupulous advertising agencies
who nick your ideas to sell chocolates with.
--- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#451930: ITP: ocaml-portaudio -- ocaml interface to portaudio library

[Romain Beauxis]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Romain Beauxis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


* Package name: ocaml-portaudio
  Version : 0.1.1
  Upstream Author : Samuel Mimram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://savonet.sf.net/
* License : LGPL+link exception
  Programming Lang: ocaml
  Description : ocaml interface to portaudio library

This package will provide ocaml module to interface with the portaudio
library.
For interested readers, the portaudio library is a portable audio I/O
interface for linux.


Romain

-- System Information:
Debian Release: lenny/sid
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.23.1-mactel (SMP w/2 CPU cores; PREEMPT)
Locale: LANG=fr_FR, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR (charmap=ISO-8859-1)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#451936: RFP: ttf-ubuntu-title -- The font used to create the Ubuntu logo

[Kartik Mistry]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org

--- Please fill out the fields below. ---

Package name: ttf-ubuntu-title
Version: 0.2
Upstream Author: Andrew Fitzsimon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
URL: http://packages.ubuntu.com/hardy/x11/ttf-ubuntu-title
License: LGPL
Description: The font used to create the Ubuntu logo
This font was used to create the lettering of the Ubuntu logo, it
was made available by Canonical under the LGPL to make rebranding
of Ubuntu easier.

-- 

 Cheers,
 --
 Kartik Mistry | 0xD1028C8D | IRC: kart_
 kartikm.wordpress.com | blog.ftbfs.in
 --



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#451946: ITP: aeskulap -- medical image viewer and DICOM network client

[Andreas Tille]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

* Package name: aeskulap
  Version : 0.2.2b1
  Upstream Author : Alexander Pipelka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.bms-austria.com/~pipelka/aeskulap/
* License : GPL, LGPL
  Programming Lang: C++
  Description : medical image viewer and DICOM network client
   Aeskulap is able to load a series of special images stored in the DICOM
   format for review. Additionally it is able to query and fetch DICOM
   images from archive nodes (also called PACS) over the network.  Aeskulap
   tries to achieve a full open source replacement for  commercially
   available DICOM viewers.

Preliminary packaging stuff is available in the Debian-Med SVN

  
http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/debian-med/trunk/packages/aeskulap/trunk/debian/?rev=0&sc=0

Kind regards

   Andreas.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: lenny/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (501, 'testing'), (50, 'unstable'), (5, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.17-1-686 (SMP w/1 CPU core)
Locale: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (charmap=ISO-8859-15)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: What to do when the LaTeX sources are missing, but an XML equivalent was rewritten from scratch ?

[Florian Weimer]

* Norbert Preining:

> What if upstream ships a pdf AND the source, but the generation of the
> pdf relies on not-available fonts. 
>
> I would still ship this pdf into my Debian package out of the following
> reasons:

The embedded fonts are still restricted, so it has to go into non-free
(perhaps contrib is possible, too, but I don't think it applies when the
package is a derivative work of something that fails the DFSG, instead
of merely requiring it for building).


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: What to do when the LaTeX sources are missing, but an XML equivalent was rewritten from scratch ?

[Norbert Preining]

On Mo, 19 Nov 2007, Florian Weimer wrote:
> The embedded fonts are still restricted, so it has to go into non-free

These fonts are not the full fonts, but sub-setted. Otherwise type
companies would NEVER allow any distribution of pdfs with their fonts.
But they do.


Best wishes

Norbert

---
Dr. Norbert Preining <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Vienna University of Technology
Debian Developer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian TeX Group
gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094  fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76  A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
---
BOSEMAN
One who spends all day loafing about near pedestrian crossing looking
as if he's about to cross.
--- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: What to do when the LaTeX sources are missing, but an XML equivalent was rewritten from scratch ?

[Florian Weimer]

* Norbert Preining:

> On Mo, 19 Nov 2007, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> The embedded fonts are still restricted, so it has to go into non-free
>
> These fonts are not the full fonts, but sub-setted. Otherwise type
> companies would NEVER allow any distribution of pdfs with their fonts.
> But they do.

But this doesn't mean that you are allowed to extract those subsets, put
them back into some .pfb file, and use them.  If they were free
software, you could do that.  This means it's non-free material, really.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: What to do when the LaTeX sources are missing, but an XML equivalent was rewritten from scratch ?

[Bernd Zeimetz]

> 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.

There's pdfedit, which should work well enough.

But not all pdf files are editable - they can ship text as vector or
raster data.

I think we need to make a difference here if upstream's original
document is the pdf - or if the pdf was created from xml/tex/... source.
It's not common to create documentations as pdf file in pdfedit or Adobe
Acrobat, but it may happen, and then they should be allowed in main
(probably after checking for embedded fonts).


Cheers,

Bernd

-- 
Bernd Zeimetz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: What to do when the LaTeX sources are missing, but an XML equivalent was rewritten from scratch ?

[Norbert Preining]

On Mo, 19 Nov 2007, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> I think we need to make a difference here if upstream's original
> document is the pdf - or if the pdf was created from xml/tex/... source.
> It's not common to create documentations as pdf file in pdfedit or Adobe
> Acrobat, but it may happen, and then they should be allowed in main
> (probably after checking for embedded fonts).

Completely agreed. What would be the source in this case?

Best wishes

Norbert

---
Dr. Norbert Preining <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Vienna University of Technology
Debian Developer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian TeX Group
gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094  fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76  A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
---
HOFF (vb.)
To deny indignantly something which is palpably true.
--- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: What to do when the LaTeX sources are missing, but an XML equivalent was rewritten from scratch ?

[Norbert Preining]

On Mo, 19 Nov 2007, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > These fonts are not the full fonts, but sub-setted. Otherwise type
> > companies would NEVER allow any distribution of pdfs with their fonts.
> > But they do.
> 
> But this doesn't mean that you are allowed to extract those subsets, put

Sorry, this is wrong. If I have received a pdf from Adobes web site I
have no contract with them. Not at all. That's the reason why
sub-settings was invented. What you are talking about is full font
inclusion.

Best wishes

Norbert

---
Dr. Norbert Preining <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Vienna University of Technology
Debian Developer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian TeX Group
gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094  fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76  A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
---
LUTON (n.)
The horseshoe-shaped rug which goes around a lavatory seat.
--- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bug#450432: ... and even more bugs like this?

[brian m. carlson]

On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 10:23:36AM +0600, Ivan Shmakov wrote:

Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> (Unfortunately, you might have to parse groff's warning text in order
> to ignore particular cases.)

I'm not familiar with Groff at all...  Does it allow later `.de'
to override the former?..


Yes, it does.  This behavior is consistent with that of strings, which 
are treated identically internally.  I tested it as well. :-)  It 
doesn't warn with -ww.



Looks more like a comment from the generator:

  305	Sections, no Front\-Cover Texts and no Back\-Cover Texts.  A copy 
  306	of the license can be found under 
  307	\fB/usr/share/common\-licenses/FDL\fP. 
  308	...\" created by instant / docbook\-to\-man, Wed 13 Dec 2000, 17:30


The generator is broken.  This should be .\"
Otherwise, it looks like a comment directly after a macro called "..".


> .UR used to be what you used to mark up URLs; man(7) recommended it
> until not that long ago.

What to use instead?


man(7) recommends .URL instead.  This is a groff-only feature; man(7) 
has some substitute code that works on all processors, yet still uses 
the groff features on groff.



>> W: dirmngr: manpage-has-errors-from-man usr/share/man/man1/dirmngr.1.gz 245: 
warning: `#'' not defined

  244	Lines starting with a  
  245	'#'

  246are comments.


' is the groff no-break control character (compare with . which does not 
suppress breaks), and so you need to put \& at the beginning of this 
line: \&'#'



>> W: dirmngr: manpage-has-errors-from-man 
usr/share/man/man1/dirmngr-client.1.gz 86: warning: `-vv'' not defined

   85	verbose commands to \fBdirmngr\fR, such as 
   86	'-vv'

   87   .


Should be \&'-vv'


 1490   .TP 5
 1491   .B const char * \fIfmt
 1492   is the format of the \fBprintf\fP-like message to write.
 1493   .TP 5
 1494   ...
 1495   are the variables to apply to the \fIfmt\fP format.

More like an Attempt to render ellipsis.


Should be \&...

Basically, any time you have a dot or a single-quote at the beginning of 
a line, it needs \& in front of it, unless you're using it as a control 
character.  Putting \& in the middle of a line before one of those 
characters doesn't hurt either.  The only time this isn't the case is if 
you've changed one of the control characters, which almost never happens 
(and you would know if you did).


--
brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US
+1 713 440 7475 | http://crustytoothpaste.ath.cx/~bmc | My opinion only
a typesetting engine: http://crustytoothpaste.ath.cx/~bmc/code/thwack
OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: What to do when the LaTeX sources are missing, but an XML equivalent was rewritten from scratch ?

[Florian Weimer]

* Norbert Preining:

> On Mo, 19 Nov 2007, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> > These fonts are not the full fonts, but sub-setted. Otherwise type
>> > companies would NEVER allow any distribution of pdfs with their fonts.
>> > But they do.
>> 
>> But this doesn't mean that you are allowed to extract those subsets, put
>
> Sorry, this is wrong.

What part?

It's not allowed to create a font based on font subsets from random PDF
files downloaded from the net (chances are that once you've got a
substantial selection, the fonts are covered in full).  Do you disagree
with this statement?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#451975: ITP: cl-plplot -- A CFFI based interface to the PLplot scientific plotting library

[Philipp Benner]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Philipp Benner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

* Package name: cl-plplot
  Version : 0.4.0
  Upstream Author : Hazen Babcoc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://common-lisp.net/project/cl-plplot/
* License : MIT
  Programming Lang: Lisp
  Description : A CFFI based interface to the PLplot scientific plotting 
library

Cl-plplot provides a CFFI based interface to the PLplot graphics 
library. The PLplot graphics library supports the drawing of many different 
types of 2D and 3D graphs using a large variety of output devices including
X11, postscript and png. PLplot can also be used to make scaled drawing,
or diagrams.

At present, cl-plplot consists of two packages, one is low-level interface 
to the PLplot library and the other is high-level plotting interface that 
attempts to make using PLplot with Lisp easier.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: lenny/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'stable')
Architecture: powerpc (ppc)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.18
Locale: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (charmap=ISO-8859-15)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash

-- 
Philipp Benner



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#452014: ITP: atl2-source -- Source for the Attansic L2 ethernet driver

[Ben Armstrong]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Ben Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

* Package name: atl2-source
  Version : 1.0.40.2
  Upstream Author : xiong huang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : 
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/hardy/+source/linux-ubuntu-modules-2.6.22/
* License : GPL
  Programming Lang: C
  Description : Source for the Attansic L2 ethernet driver

This is the driver for the Attansic/Atheros L2 which is present in
systems such as the Asus Eee PC.



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: What to do when the LaTeX sources are missing, but an XML equivalent was rewritten from scratch ?

[Russ Allbery]

Norbert Preining <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mo, 19 Nov 2007, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Norbert Preining:

>>> These fonts are not the full fonts, but sub-setted. Otherwise type
>>> companies would NEVER allow any distribution of pdfs with their fonts.
>>> But they do.

>> But this doesn't mean that you are allowed to extract those subsets, put

> Sorry, this is wrong. If I have received a pdf from Adobes web site I
> have no contract with them. Not at all. That's the reason why
> sub-settings was invented. What you are talking about is full font
> inclusion.

In the absence of an explicit copyright license, Debian has generally
taken the conservative position that just because something is available
for download doesn't grant an implicit license, and hence doesn't mean
that you can redistribute it or make any derivative work from it
(including extracting pieces of it).

The holders of copyright rights on the fonts still have those rights even
if you have no explicit contract with Adobe when you downloaded the
document.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: What to do when the LaTeX sources are missing, but an XML equivalent was rewritten from scratch ?

[Norbert Preining]

On Mo, 19 Nov 2007, Russ Allbery wrote:
> In the absence of an explicit copyright license, Debian has generally
> taken the conservative position that just because something is available
> for download doesn't grant an implicit license, and hence doesn't mean
> that you can redistribute it or make any derivative work from it
> (including extracting pieces of it).

Assume that author X bought the fonts, embedded them into a document and
put an article using these fonts on his web page with the statement: The
document is free to use and distribute. The author is acting strictly
conforming to the license granted to him by the font company.

Best wishes

Norbert

---
Dr. Norbert Preining <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Vienna University of Technology
Debian Developer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian TeX Group
gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094  fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76  A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
---
BENBURB
The sort of man who becomes a returning officer.
--- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: What to do when the LaTeX sources are missing, but an XML equivalent was rewritten from scratch ?

[Russ Allbery]

Norbert Preining <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mo, 19 Nov 2007, Russ Allbery wrote:

>> In the absence of an explicit copyright license, Debian has generally
>> taken the conservative position that just because something is
>> available for download doesn't grant an implicit license, and hence
>> doesn't mean that you can redistribute it or make any derivative work
>> from it (including extracting pieces of it).

> Assume that author X bought the fonts, embedded them into a document and
> put an article using these fonts on his web page with the statement: The
> document is free to use and distribute. The author is acting strictly
> conforming to the license granted to him by the font company.

If that's the case, then that's great.  As a paranoid Debian package
maintainer, I'd prefer it if upstream would include a copy of the license
granted by the font company.

Of course, that free to use and distribute is not sufficient for Debian
main.  They would also have to grant a license to create derivative works
and distribute those derivative works, including the derivative work of
extracting the fonts and distributing them alone.  That's why I'd like to
see the original font license so that it's possible to verify that the
correct rights are granted.

If that isn't possible, I think it's kind of a murky area.  I'm not sure
I'd support going on a crusade against such documents, but I'd much rather
see all documents in Debian have a clear provenance, including being built
from fonts in Debian.

(Full disclosure: one of my packages has PDF files with no source because
the source has been lost and not even upstream has anything but pure PDF
files.  I gave it a lot of thought before including them.  They're the
only available documentation of certain protocol issues, so they're
useful, but I'm still not clear on whether they're really DFSG-happy.)

-- 
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: What to do when the LaTeX sources are missing, but an XML equivalent was rewritten from scratch ?

[Don Armstrong]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, Norbert Preining wrote:
> On Mo, 19 Nov 2007, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > > - the source is present, no freedom is taken: The document is present,
> > >   the source code.
> > > - the pdf can be regenerated albeit with minor quality.
> > 
> > Thats different to "relies on not-available fonts".
> > Relies == cant be build without them.
> 
> Recreating the exact same pdf (modulo creation date etc) relies on these
> fonts. Recreating the same document with different fonts, and thus with
> different layout and appearance is possible.

Then why distribute the original PDFs at all in that case? Just
distribute the recreations. You're going to have to distribute them at
some point if bugs in the documentation are filed, so you might as
well just start distributing them.

 
Don Armstrong

-- 
Certainly the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you. If you don't
bet, you can't win.
 -- Robert Heinlein _Time Enough For Love_ p240

http://www.donarmstrong.com  http://rzlab.ucr.edu


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: What to do when the LaTeX sources are missing, but an XML equivalent was rewritten from scratch ?

[Don Armstrong]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, Norbert Preining wrote:
> On Mo, 19 Nov 2007, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> > I think we need to make a difference here if upstream's original
> > document is the pdf - or if the pdf was created from xml/tex/... source.
> > It's not common to create documentations as pdf file in pdfedit or Adobe
> > Acrobat, but it may happen, and then they should be allowed in main
> > (probably after checking for embedded fonts).
> 
> Completely agreed. What would be the source in this case?

The source code is (as always) the form that the author would actually
use to edit the work (or the closest digital representation thereof if
the form is a non-digital object.)

If the author uses the pdf, it's the pdf. If the author uses the tex,
it's the tex. (Even if the PDFs were (for the sake of discussion)
exactly identical.)


Don Armstrong

-- 
I'd never hurt another living thing.
But if I did...
It would be you.
 -- Chris Bishop  http://www.chrisbishop.com/her/archives/her69.html

http://www.donarmstrong.com  http://rzlab.ucr.edu


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: What to do when the LaTeX sources are missing, but an XML equivalent was rewritten from scratch ?

[Norbert Preining]

On Mo, 19 Nov 2007, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Of course, that free to use and distribute is not sufficient for Debian
> main.  They would also have to grant a license to create derivative works
> and distribute those derivative works, including the derivative work of

Argg, yes, here we are again. What matters to me is that a user can use
the INFORMATION in the document, i.e. the actual source and use it in
case he makes a derived work.

And it matters to me that people can get optimal typographic quality.

So either we have to distribute crippled versions of many documents,
crippled only in the sense that yes, all the information/text is there,
but the layout and design is crippled. Or we do not distribute them at
all.

That is a very bad option, sorry.

Maybe it is that I am one of the few who CARE for design and typographic
quality.

Do the DFSG apply to design???

What does it mean that a design is free?

I knew in advance that this discussion is useless. What a pity for most
of our users to get only crippled versions of documents, not nice and
not beautiful. As DEK says at the beginning of the TeX book:

Go forth and create beautiful documents.

Well, we are doomed to ship crippled variants of beautiful documents.

> If that isn't possible, I think it's kind of a murky area.  I'm not sure
> I'd support going on a crusade against such documents, but I'd much rather
> see all documents in Debian have a clear provenance, including being built
> from fonts in Debian.

Well, we can restrict us even further, but in the typographic world this
is unfortunately a pain-in-the-ass.

Take, as a VERY NICE example the fontinstallationguide.pdf by Philip
Lehman. It is distributed with a nice pdf and the source code (besides
others). The pdf uses many commercial fonts (like Minion, Adobe
Garamond, ...). It is a beautiful document, worth to be bound as book,
worth to be read, full of wonderful information. The design makes it
even better, an example of art and technique.

Now take the source code, it is under GPL, it states:
% Note that the document preamble was altered in such a way that the file
% requires a standard class and publicly available packages only, all of which
% can be found at CTAN. The body is almost unmodified. I have essentially
% removed the original title page and any graphics to ensure that the file is
% self-contained and can be compiled without further modification. Most
% packages employed in this file are standard and should be supplied by all Tex
% distributions. Any non-standard packages you might be lacking are available
% from CTAN.
%
% I have not made any attempt at polishing the layout since this file is not
% intended for typesetting in its present form. It is mainly provided for the
% sake of translators and anyone interested in using the content under the
% terms of the GNU FDL.

So what options do we have:
- either we distribute the source code plus the pdf generated from it,
  which will give the users a document which is "NOT INTENDED FOR
  TYPESETTING" (from the above statement),

- or we ship the nice pdf and the source code

In both cases the user has the FULL RIGHT over the source code, can use
it in any way he likes. Reuse it, alter it, etc etc. But in the second
case he ALSO (!) has the right to have a nice beautiful well
designed document.

So do we TAKE rights from the users or GIVE them rights?

Answers please?

Are we caring for users? And their rights? Then why take away their
right to have something well designed?


Best wishes

Norbert

---
Dr. Norbert Preining <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Vienna University of Technology
Debian Developer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian TeX Group
gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094  fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76  A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
---
BOSCASTLE
A huge pyramid of tin cans placed just inside the entrance to a
supermarket.
--- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: What to do when the LaTeX sources are missing, but an XML equivalent was rewritten from scratch ?

[Norbert Preining]

On Mo, 19 Nov 2007, Don Armstrong wrote:
> If the author uses the pdf, it's the pdf. If the author uses the tex,

Umpf, how do you proof/ensure that the source of a pdf is the pdf?
I hope you don't trust the "PDF Producer" field and similar?

So, we are settled, I could - just for the sake of discussion - say that
the sources of all our pdfs are the pdfs itself, just altered to
mentiond pdftex in ther "PDF Producers" field, but this is just a joke.

Don't get me wrong: I agree with you that the source of the pdf is the
pdf and SHOULD BE included in Debian. But I want to get more than that.
I want to get the freedom to design.

Best wishes

Norbert

---
Dr. Norbert Preining <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Vienna University of Technology
Debian Developer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian TeX Group
gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094  fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76  A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
---
BALDOCK
The sharp prong on the top of a tree stump where the tree has snapped
off before being completely sawn through.
--- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: What to do when the LaTeX sources are missing, but an XML equivalent was rewritten from scratch ?

[Russ Allbery]

Norbert Preining <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Argg, yes, here we are again. What matters to me is that a user can use
> the INFORMATION in the document, i.e. the actual source and use it in
> case he makes a derived work.
>
> And it matters to me that people can get optimal typographic quality.
>
> So either we have to distribute crippled versions of many documents,
> crippled only in the sense that yes, all the information/text is there,
> but the layout and design is crippled. Or we do not distribute them at
> all.
>
> That is a very bad option, sorry.
>
> Maybe it is that I am one of the few who CARE for design and typographic
> quality.
>
> Do the DFSG apply to design???

I'm personally going to bow out here, since I think this is now a
discussion about what rules we should have rather than how to apply them,
and I try not to have this discussion.  I don't disagree with you, but am
not sure that I agree with you either.  I think the tradeoffs are very
hard.  But we had a GR a while back which, at least in my opinion, is
fairly unambiguous in its results (particularly after the subsequent GRs),
so policy-wise that was the decision of the project.

I would certainly carefully consider a new GR to see if I thought it was
an improvement, but short of that, this discussion tends to be very
frustrating for all involved.

I hate the way fonts are licensed and how few of them are under free
software licenses.  I think it's one of the biggest flaws and shortcomings
of free software right now.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: What to do when the LaTeX sources are missing, but an XML equivalent was rewritten from scratch ?

[Don Armstrong]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, Norbert Preining wrote:
> On Mo, 19 Nov 2007, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > If the author uses the pdf, it's the pdf. If the author uses the tex,
> 
> Umpf, how do you proof/ensure that the source of a pdf is the pdf? I
> hope you don't trust the "PDF Producer" field and similar?

You can't ensure anything. The most you can do is look at the work and
consider what the most likely method of producing that work is. If the
author claims otherwise, you (and the ftpmasters) have to decide
whether you believe the author or not. [And frankly, if the author is
making PDFs insanely, using their software may not be particularly
useful, either.]

> So, we are settled, I could - just for the sake of discussion - say
> that the sources of all our pdfs are the pdfs itself, just altered
> to mentiond pdftex in ther "PDF Producers" field, but this is just a
> joke.

You'll note that I don't say anything about what you say the source
is. I talk about what the author *uses*. Since you're not the author,
and it's apparently obvious, even to you, that the PDFs came from tex
source, that's what we should assume.

> Don't get me wrong: I agree with you that the source of the pdf is
> the pdf and SHOULD BE included in Debian. But I want to get more
> than that. I want to get the freedom to design.

I'm not sure that I follow you here.


Don Armstrong

-- 
The sheer ponderousness of the panel's opinion ... refutes its thesis
far more convincingly than anything I might say. The panel's labored
effort to smother the Second Amendment by sheer body weight has all
the grace of a sumo wrestler trying to kill a rattlesnake by sitting
on it--and is just as likely to succeed.
 -- Alex Kozinski in Silveira V Lockyer

http://www.donarmstrong.com  http://rzlab.ucr.edu


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: What to do when the LaTeX sources are missing, but an XML equivalent was rewritten from scratch ?

[Joerg Jaspert]

On 11208 March 1977, Norbert Preining wrote:

> Do the DFSG apply to design???

The DFSG apply to stuff thats put into our archive.

And you know, our SC states "Debian will remain 100% free", it doesnt
say Free Software.

> Well, we are doomed to ship crippled variants of beautiful documents.

People can replace design with $whatever they like in your
argumentation.

> So what options do we have:
> - either we distribute the source code plus the pdf generated from it,
>   which will give the users a document which is "NOT INTENDED FOR
>   TYPESETTING" (from the above statement),

> - or we ship the nice pdf and the source code

> In both cases the user has the FULL RIGHT over the source code, can use
> it in any way he likes. Reuse it, alter it, etc etc. But in the second
> case he ALSO (!) has the right to have a nice beautiful well
> designed document.

> So do we TAKE rights from the users or GIVE them rights?

We do not take their rights. They are still free to fetch that document
from elsewhere. What we dont change are our general rules *everything*
needs to follow that gets included into Debian. If you do want to
include things that can't go into main: contrib or non-free is for
espeically for that, to make it easy for our users if something doesn't
fit the more strict rules main has...


-- 
bye Joerg
4. If you are using the Program in someone else's bedroom at any Monday
3:05 PM, you are not allowed to modify the Program for ten
minutes. [This clause provided by Inphernic; every licence should
contain at least one clause, the reasoning behind which is far from
obvious.]
-- libdumb 1:0.9.3-1


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#452034: ITP: libhtml-template-pro-perl -- Perl/XS module to use HTML Templates from CGI scripts

[Vincent Danjean]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Vincent Danjean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

* Package name: libhtml-template-pro-perl
  Version : 0.66
  Upstream Author : I. Yu. Vlasenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/dist/HTML-Template-Pro/
* License : Same as perl (GPL+Artistic)
  Programming Lang: C and Perl
  Description : Perl/XS module to use HTML Templates from CGI scripts

 This module attempts to make using HTML templates simple and natural.
 It extends standard HTML with a few new HTML-esque tags - ,
 , , ,  and .
 The file written with HTML and these new tags is called a template.
 It is usually saved separate from your script - possibly even created
 by someone else!  Using this module you fill in the values for the
 variables, loops and branches declared in the template.  This allows
 you to separate design - the HTML - from the data, which you generate
 in the Perl script.


-- System Information:
Debian Release: lenny/sid
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (990, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable'), (1, 
'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.23-1-686 (SMP w/1 CPU core)
Locale: LANG=fr_FR.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

ITP: libcgi-formbuilder-source-yaml-perl -- Initialize CGI::FormBuilder application from YAML file

[Ernesto Hernandez-Novich]

Package: wnpp

* Package name: libcgi-formbuilder-source-yaml-perl
  Version: 1.0008
  Upstream Author: Mark Hedges <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/CGI-FormBuilder-Source-Yaml/
* License: GPL or Perl Artistic

Description:

This Perl module reads a YAML file containing CGI::FormBuilder
configuration options and returns a hash that can be directly fed into
the application's initialization method CGI::FormBuilder->new().

It uses YAML::Syck as YAML backend, allowing full data structure
specification as well as code fragment specification. This is
particularly useful if you need to define validation callbacks, as if
often desired in CGI::FormBuilder applications.
-- 
Ernesto Hernández-Novich - Linux 2.6.18 i686 - Unix: Live free or die!
Geek by nature, Linux by choice, Debian of course.
If you can't aptitude it, it isn't useful or doesn't exist.
GPG Key Fingerprint = 438C 49A2 A8C7 E7D7 1500 C507 96D6 A3D6 2F4C 85E3


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#452045: ITP: dialign-t-doc -- PDF, HTML and PS Documentation for dialign-t

[Charles Plessy]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

  Package name: non-free/dialign-t-doc
  Version : 2.2
  Upstream Author : Amarendran R. Subramanian, Volker Menrad, Dorothea Emig
  URL : http://dialign-t.gobics.de/
  License : LGPL
  Programming Lang: NA
  Description : PDF, HTML and PS Documentation for dialign-t

 Documentation for DIALIGN-T that was removed from the package
 "dialign-t" in the Debian operating system.

As pointed by Joerg Jaspert in the discussion in debian-devel, "non-free
is for espeically for that, to make it easy for our users if something
doesn't fit the more strict rules main has..."

-- 
Charles Plessy



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: What to do when the LaTeX sources are missing, but an XML equivalent was rewritten from scratch ?

[Daniel Burrows]

On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 10:52:21PM +0100, Norbert Preining <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
was heard to say:
> On Mo, 19 Nov 2007, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > If the author uses the pdf, it's the pdf. If the author uses the tex,
> 
> Umpf, how do you proof/ensure that the source of a pdf is the pdf?
> I hope you don't trust the "PDF Producer" field and similar?

  In general, we trust members of Debian to not deliberately subvert
Debian's processes and procedures.

  Daniel


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: MTA comparison (postfix, exim4, ...)

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 01:44:51 +0900, Osamu Aoki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> Just to be sure...  I am running postfix now just to find out the same
> questions you have...

> I see no practical reason to run postfix on desktop machine now except
> if postfix is something you are very familiar with...  As you mght
> have expected, Manoj who is one of the best DD and wants to package
> everything without debhelper seems to be running sendmail on his
> desktop machine.  I am not taking this data to say we should follow
> him.  This data was meant to give some objective status view.

While I am flattered (and somewhat embarrassed) by the
 accolade, I strongly agree with the assessment that I am far from the
 typical user, and I should very likely not be emulated in this area.

I run sendmail since I have long paid my dues in sendmail.cf;
 and since sendmail can do everything I ever want an MTA to do, this
 level of comfort has come from  long hours of blood and sweat and
 tears, and not everyone can spend the time required to learn the
 intricacies of sendmail's config language.

I do think, however, that the sentiment that sendmail is much
 worse for security might be something that needs to be reviewd; today's
 sendmail is not the sendmail of yore.  It has undergone a refactoring,
 and now implements privilege separation  (which is something that
 postfix pioneered).

manoj
-- 
A lost ounce of gold may be found, a lost moment of time never.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: QA needed for insecure LD_LIBRARY_PATH in many wrapper scripts

[Vineet Kumar]

* Stefan Fritsch ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [071116 13:03]:
> is unset. (Actually, some scripts use "${LD_LIBRARY_PATH+:
> $LD_LIBRARY_PATH}", which seems to work, too. But this is not 
> documented in the bash man page, at least I can't find it.)

The difference between ${PARAMETER:+WORD} and ${PARAMETER+WORD} is
subtle, and you're right, it's not documented in the bash man page.
It is part of the POSIX shell standard, though.  ${PARAMETER:+WORD}
substitutes WORD if PARAMETER is set and non-empty.  ${PARAMETER+WORD}
substitutes WORD if PARAMETER is set, empty or not.  For example:

[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ FOO=
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ echo ${FOO+BAR}
BAR
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ echo ${FOO:+BAR}

[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ unset FOO
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ echo ${FOO+BAR}

[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ echo ${FOO:+BAR}

[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ 

In many cases they'll be equivalent, but in the LD_LIBRARY_PATH case,
I'd recommend using the colon-form.  If someone has set an empty
LD_LIBRARY_PATH, the correct behavior is just to add the directory you
want; you don't want to stick an extra empty pathname component in
there.

good times,
Vineet

-- 
http://www.doorstop.net/
-- 
"As we enjoy great advantages from inventions of others, we should be glad
of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we
should do freely and generously."   --Benjamin Franklin


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: MTA comparison (postfix, exim4, ...)

[Miles Bader]

Osamu Aoki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For me, exim4 is better:
>  * less memory on run time
>  * mailname is implimented as expected by the policy.

Postfix has a reputation for being faster and more secure than exim.

Why is it worth worrying about, though?  Are the difference between exim
and postfix really great enough to matter for typical use?!?

[If you're a high-volume mail site, of course, you will care about the
difference, but then you should be doing your own analysis...]

-MIles
-- 
My books focus on timeless truths.  -- Donald Knuth


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]