Re: teTeX Documentation Licenses (B, C)
Corcomp Infosystems Ltd. is a India based IT services company providing business, technology as well as cost benefits enabled by Information technology. We provide business benefits by rendering enterprise solutions in verticles like retail, insurance, process manufacturing, transportation etc. In addition to business benefits to end users, we also provide IT development services to IT companies in US, UK and Germany. Outsourcing to India can be really a competitve edge for any IT company in US, UK or Germany. So this also provides cost benefits to IT companies as well as their end users. These solutions/services use either Microsoft technologies or Sun Java based technologies. We are a Microsoft Certified Solutions Provider as well a Sun Certified Developer Partner. Do you see any opportunity for us to work together ? Thanks and regards Miss Sampada Khole Business Development Manager (Outsourcing) Corcomp Infosystems Ltd. t: 091 022 509 3100 f: 091 022 514 0592 w: www.corcomp.com Offices in USA, UK, Germany -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Financial Restrictions (Was Re: teTeX Documentation Licenses (A), (D) (H))
On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 12:55:06PM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote: which sounds like the Artistic license's Reasonable copying fee is whatever you can justify on the basis of media cost, duplication charges, time of people involved, and so on The parenthetical comment that follows it is, I think critical here: (You will not be required to justify it to the Copyright Holder, but only to the computing community at large as a market that must bear the fee.) Right. I am convinced. We need a DSFG FAQ! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Financial Restrictions (Was Re: teTeX Documentation Licenses (A), (D) (H))
Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Looks like words lifted from the Artistic license ( Reasonable copying fee is whatever you can justify on the basis of media cost, duplication charges, time of people involved, and so on.) In the case of the Artistic License, it was explicitly understood that reasonable was hugely broad. This is not, however, the normal meaning of the term. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Financial Restrictions (Was Re: teTeX Documentation Licenses (A), (D) (H))
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Looks like words lifted from the Artistic license ( Reasonable copying fee is whatever you can justify on the basis of media cost, duplication charges, time of people involved, and so on.) In the case of the Artistic License, it was explicitly understood that reasonable was hugely broad. This is not, however, the normal meaning of the term. Right. Let me rephrase it bit. Their license says: Permission is granted to reproduce the document in any way providing that it is distributed for free, except for any reasonable charges for printing, distribution, staff time, etc. which sounds like the Artistic license's Reasonable copying fee is whatever you can justify on the basis of media cost, duplication charges, time of people involved, and so on e.g. both sound vague enough to me to drive a truck through. I don't think we can reasonably say this one is non-free without saying the same about the Artistic license. This is just one of those points I'd like to see clarified in a new version of the DFSG. I had more concerns about the distribution of all the source code together (preventing portions to be used easily in derived works) but I guess that's similar to a patch-only clause. just my two cents. Peter -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Financial Restrictions (Was Re: teTeX Documentation Licenses (A), (D) (H))
Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Right. Let me rephrase it bit. Their license says: Permission is granted to reproduce the document in any way providing that it is distributed for free, except for any reasonable charges for printing, distribution, staff time, etc. which sounds like the Artistic license's Reasonable copying fee is whatever you can justify on the basis of media cost, duplication charges, time of people involved, and so on e.g. both sound vague enough to me to drive a truck through. I don't think we can reasonably say this one is non-free without saying the same about the Artistic license. This is just one of those points I'd like to see clarified in a new version of the DFSG. Except that the Artistic License author also said it's fine with me if you drive a truck through here. That's the difference. And, he amended the license. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Financial Restrictions (Was Re: teTeX Documentation Licenses (A), (D) (H))
On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 12:55:06PM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote: which sounds like the Artistic license's Reasonable copying fee is whatever you can justify on the basis of media cost, duplication charges, time of people involved, and so on The parenthetical comment that follows it is, I think critical here: (You will not be required to justify it to the Copyright Holder, but only to the computing community at large as a market that must bear the fee.) In other words (following capitalist logic): if people pay the fee, then it's reasonable. I think this is different in princible from a license where reasonable is determined by the copyright holder, or the courts. Richard Braakman -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: teTeX Documentation Licenses (G)
TB == Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] G. This software was written as a personal project and comes with NO WARRANTY of any kind, not even MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. The author assumes no responsibility for any use. Copyright (C) 1997 Jane Roe DISTRIBUTION: You are not allowed to distribute this file alone. You are allowed to distribute this file under the condition that it is distributed together with all the files listed herein. If you receive only some of these files from someone, complain! NO PERMISSION is granted to produce or to distribute a modified version of this file or any of the ASCII files listed above under their original name. TB The bundling rule is of course, not DFSG free. (It's an TB invariant text rule, donchaknow!) But we can put it in TB non-free if we want. By ``bundling rule'', you're referring to ``You are allowed to distribute this file under the condition that it is distributed together with all the files listed herein.''? Which clause of the DFSG is that a problem for? The first (free redistribution)? The third (derived works)? Thanks, CMC +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ Man cannot be civilised, or be kept civilised by what he does in his spare time; only by what he does as his work. W.R. Lethaby +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ C.M. Connelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] SHC, DS +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Financial Restrictions (Was Re: teTeX Documentation Licenses (A), (D) (H))
TB == Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A.
[...]
You are NOT ALLOWED to take money for the distribution or
use of this file or modified versions or fragments thereof,
except for a nominal charge for copying etc.
D.
[...]
Permission is granted to reproduce the document in any way
providing that it is distributed for free, except for any
reasonable charges for printing, distribution, staff time,
etc. Direct commercial exploitation is not permitted.
Extracts may be made from this document providing an
acknowledgement of the original source is maintained.
H.
[...]
You are {\em not allowed\/} to take money for the
distribution or use of this file except for a nominal
charge for copying, etc. Redistribution of unchanged files
is allowed provided that the whole package is distributed.
[From discussion of D]
TB The limitation on copying fees mean that these files
TB cannot be in Debian, but they can be in the non-free
TB archive.
So the restriction of a ``nominal'' or ``reasonable'' charge is
enough to cause a problem here, even if there was no real charge
being made? (I'm assuming that the problem here is with the first
clause of the DFSG,
1. Free Redistribution
The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party
from selling or giving away the software as a component of an
aggregate software distribution containing programs from
several different sources. The license may not require a
royalty or other fee for such sale.
)
Doesn't the GPL say pretty much the same thing in Section 3.b.?
Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, ***for a charge no more than
your cost of physically performing source distribution***, a
complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source
code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2
above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;
or,
(my emphasis)
CMC
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Man cannot be civilised, or be kept civilised by what he does in his
spare time; only by what he does as his work.
W.R. Lethaby
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
C.M. Connelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] SHC, DS
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: teTeX Documentation Licenses (G)
C.M. Connelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: By ``bundling rule'', you're referring to ``You are allowed to distribute this file under the condition that it is distributed together with all the files listed herein.''? Which clause of the DFSG is that a problem for? The first (free redistribution)? The third (derived works)? Derived works. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Financial Restrictions (Was Re: teTeX Documentation Licenses (A), (D) (H))
C.M. Connelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [From discussion of D] TB The limitation on copying fees mean that these files TB cannot be in Debian, but they can be in the non-free TB archive. So the restriction of a ``nominal'' or ``reasonable'' charge is enough to cause a problem here, even if there was no real charge being made? (I'm assuming that the problem here is with the first clause of the DFSG, Section one of the DFSG says you can't restrict selling. Doesn't the GPL say pretty much the same thing in Section 3.b.? Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, ***for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution***, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, You don't have to abide by that section if you don't want to; that section applies only if you distribute binaries without source. Read the GPL more carefully, please. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Financial Restrictions (Was Re: teTeX Documentation Licenses (A), (D) (H))
On Mon, 25 Mar 2002, C.M. Connelly wrote: So the restriction of a ``nominal'' or ``reasonable'' charge is enough to cause a problem here, even if there was no real charge being made? (I'm assuming that the problem here is with the first clause of the DFSG, ... Doesn't the GPL say pretty much the same thing in Section 3.b.? Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, ***for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution***, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source Nope. The GPL portion you cite is about including source during/after delivering the software, not about the software itself. Under the GPL, one can sell the software for as much as the market will bear. However, one cannot distribute the software without making the source available cheaply), nor bar the customer from distributing the software (also with source) as they choose. -- Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Financial Restrictions (Was Re: teTeX Documentation Licenses (A), (D) (H))
TB == Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] Me Doesn't the GPL say pretty much the same thing in Section Me 3.b.? TB You don't have to abide by that section if you don't want TB to; that section applies only if you distribute binaries TB without source. Read the GPL more carefully, please. Hmm. And it isn't an issue for Debian because the DFSG requires the source. Okay. CMC +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ Man cannot be civilised, or be kept civilised by what he does in his spare time; only by what he does as his work. W.R. Lethaby +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ C.M. Connelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] SHC, DS +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: teTeX Documentation Licenses
C.M. Connelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2. Restrictions on modification Presumably this one is the real sticking point. It seems to me that the logic behind this restriction makes sense for the core LaTeX packages -- the developers don't want to receive complaints and bug reports about standard LaTeX components that people might have modified and distributed under the same name without making the modifications and contacts clear. It's less clear to me that this restriction is a good idea for contributed packages. It ensures that a package can only be modified by its original author (or someone she authorizes) which is both a good thing (for stability and consistency) and a bad thing (packages can become moribund when their authors move on). I can't speak for Branden, but the first time I read the LPPL, I was nervous as well. The restrictions on modifications are a huge hassle. It doesn't clearly allow distribution of binaries built from modified source. Also, the restrictions on what kind of changes can be made to font definition (.fd) files are clearly not DFSG-free. I'm not sure about the restrictions on installation (.ins) files. If they contain anything more than copyright notices and license texts, then they are not DFSG-free. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: teTeX Documentation Licenses
On Thu, Mar 14, 2002 at 11:55:30AM -0800, Walter Landry wrote: I can't speak for Branden, but the first time I read the LPPL, I was nervous as well. The restrictions on modifications are a huge hassle. It doesn't clearly allow distribution of binaries built from modified source. Also, the restrictions on what kind of changes can be made to font definition (.fd) files are clearly not DFSG-free. I'm not sure about the restrictions on installation (.ins) files. If they contain anything more than copyright notices and license texts, then they are not DFSG-free. I sent Claire my unfinished, 200-line analysis of the LPPL privately. Privately because it's not suitable for public consumption yet. :) -- G. Branden Robinson|The basic test of freedom is Debian GNU/Linux |perhaps less in what we are free to [EMAIL PROTECTED] |do than in what we are free not to http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |do. -- Eric Hoffer pgplq7EGZykrI.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: teTeX Documentation Licenses
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 BR == Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Sorry if the following is redundant, but I want to make sure we're all on the same page.] To clarify, most of the ``documentation'' files I'm concerned with here are generated from the same source as the ``style'' files they document. LaTeX packages, like TeX itself, are generally written in a ``literate programming'' style that mingles TeX/LaTeX code with documentation. The contents of these ``dtx'' files (generally one or more ``style'' files, with other possible support or configuration files) are extracted by running LaTeX on an ``ins'' file. The documentation is then generated by running LaTeX on the dtx file. Thus, in most cases, both the documentation and the code are covered by the same license, and my assumption is that problems with the licensing of a document also affect the code and the source file. The license of choice for LaTeX packages is the LPPL, probably mostly because of its use in licensing the ``core'' LaTeX distribution and its prominent position on the LaTeX Project's website [1] and in the LaTeX distribution (see modguide.dvi; ``texdoc modguide''). Branden writes BR I've read the LPPL and I'm nervous about it, so I would BR not encourage the authors of these documents to adopt it. After reading the LPPL (http://www.latex-project.org/lppl.html) and previous discussions on debian-legal, I'm not entirely clear on what makes you (and others) nervous about the LPPL, although I can think of two major possibilities: 1. The source distribution requirement We seem to believe that the source distribution requirement is covered by our tetex-src package (which contains the original, unmodified dtx and ins files for the packages we distribute), so shouldn't be seen as that much of a problem. 2. Restrictions on modification Presumably this one is the real sticking point. It seems to me that the logic behind this restriction makes sense for the core LaTeX packages -- the developers don't want to receive complaints and bug reports about standard LaTeX components that people might have modified and distributed under the same name without making the modifications and contacts clear. It's less clear to me that this restriction is a good idea for contributed packages. It ensures that a package can only be modified by its original author (or someone she authorizes) which is both a good thing (for stability and consistency) and a bad thing (packages can become moribund when their authors move on). I would greatly appreciate additional comments/criticisms of the LPPL, especially confirmation that my interpretation of the DFSG issues are correct. I am working on e-mail messages to send to the authors of the problematic packages, and I want to be able to present some clear alternatives to the LPPL, which means being able to explain why the LPPL is not necessarily the best choice for every package. Also, the recommended LPPL licensing statement (to be used in source files) makes it clear that files can be considered to be covered by version 1.2 of the LPPL or a later version. Has anyone approached the LaTeX folks with a proposal to adjust the LPPL to make it more clearly DFSG free? Should we? What changes would we want? As for the pure documentation files, I will definitely mention the Open Publication License and the GNU Free Documentation License. In some cases one of those licenses may be applicable. One issue to be aware of, however, is that some of the problematic documents consist of journal preprints or reprints and do not have source available (even in some cases where the software distribution they are part of is in the public domain). In these cases, I'm not at all certain that the authors *could* grant more open licensing terms even if they wanted to. I'm also not sure that making source available for these types of documents is even a good idea -- as preprints/reprints, they represent the way the text originally appeared or was meant to appear in a published journal. Modifying them would sever the connection. A final issue is that some of the authors -- including those of some of the most commonly used packages with problematic licenses - -- have not been active for some time. We may be forced to drop these files completely, which is likely to cause some annoyance for our users. That annoyance may be spread to other teTeX users on other platforms, however, because Thomas Esser (the upstream teTeX author/maintainer) has shown a great deal of support and enthusiasm for only including DFSG-free material in recent releases. Thanks again for your time, Claire +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ Man cannot be civilised, or be kept civilised by what he does in his spare time; only by what he does as his
Re: teTeX Documentation Licenses (B, C)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes: copyright protection under the Pan-American copyright treaty. (And it's still relevant, because there are some countries which have signed the Pan-American treaty, and not the Berne Convention.) No it's not really relevant because with the Berne Convention we couldn't even distribute it without the 'magic phrase'. You don't even have to claim copyright to have a work protected. Works without any copyright statement can't be distributed by Debian. Not even in non-free. -- Emacs er det eneste moderne styresystem der ikke er multitrådet.
Re: teTeX Documentation Licenses (B, C)
Peter Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes: copyright protection under the Pan-American copyright treaty. (And it's still relevant, because there are some countries which have signed the Pan-American treaty, and not the Berne Convention.) No it's not really relevant because with the Berne Convention we couldn't even distribute it without the 'magic phrase'. You don't even have to claim copyright to have a work protected. Works without any copyright statement can't be distributed by Debian. Not even in non-free. Yes, of course this is agreed. I was just explaining why all rights reserved is there, and that it doesn't mean anything like you have no license to copy; it's just an assertion of copyright under the Pan American convention, nothing more, nothing less. As I said in the very message you have trimmed, Debian's policy is not to cut such hairs, any claimed copyright we treat as if they claimed it properly. Is there some reason you trimmed that? Just so you could make the same point yourself? Thomas
Re: teTeX Documentation Licenses (B, C)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes: Is there some reason you trimmed that? Just so you could make the same point yourself? No point being so agressive. I read the message as you meant that what I quoted had some relvance for the conclusion --- Which we aparently both knows is wrong. -- Emacs er det eneste moderne styresystem der ikke er multitrådet.
Re: teTeX Documentation Licenses (B, C)
Peter Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes: Is there some reason you trimmed that? Just so you could make the same point yourself? No point being so agressive. I read the message as you meant that what I quoted had some relvance for the conclusion --- Which we aparently both knows is wrong. Sorry for being too touchy. :) I'm up past my bedtime. When I said that all rights reserved is still relevant, I meant the following: The Berne Convention generally only requires Copyright and a date to claim a copyright, and sometimes, not even that. The older and different Pan American convention requires the additional phrase all rights reserved. But the latter phrase is still important in the world, because there are countries that are members of the Pan American convention but not the Berne convention, so publishers are well advised to put both, even now. But you thought I meant that it was still relevant for Debian; agreed that it's not--we honor even kludgy badly phrased copyrights, because that's safer, and safety is good. Thomas
Re: teTeX Documentation Licenses (B, C)
Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
(Just musing - the following does not change our conclusions about
whether Debian can distribute the files in question).
The Berne Convention generally only requires Copyright and a date to
claim a copyright, and sometimes, not even that.
In which cases does the Berne Convention require even Copyright and
a date? Article 15, paragraph 1 says:
| In order that the author of a literary or artistic work protected by
| this Convention shall, in the absence of proof to the contrary, be
| regarded as such, and consequently be entitled to institute
| infringement proceedings in the countries of the Union, it shall be
| sufficient for his name to appear on the work in the usual
| manner. This paragraph shall be applicable even if this name is a
| pseudonym, where the pseudonym adopted by the author leaves no doubt
| as to his identity.
I think in the usual manner would include things such as
\author{John Doe} without either date or the c-word.
--
Henning Makholm Jeg har tydeligt gjort opmærksom på, at man ved at
følge den vej kun bliver gennemsnitligt ca. 48 år gammel,
og at man sætter sin sociale situation ganske overstyr og, så
vidt jeg kan overskue, dør i dybeste ulykkelighed og elendighed.
Re: teTeX Documentation Licenses (B, C)
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Scripsit [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) (Just musing - the following does not change our conclusions about whether Debian can distribute the files in question). The Berne Convention generally only requires Copyright and a date to claim a copyright, and sometimes, not even that. In which cases does the Berne Convention require even Copyright and a date? Perhaps it doesn't. Perhaps it's some previous internation convention that required that. I know US law used to (and still it's a good idea to, if you want to get more damages).
teTeX Documentation Licenses
I'm in the process of vetting the documentation files that we're
distributing with the tetex-* packages. Most are DFSG-free --
under the LPPL (okay with source in tetex-src), GPL, their own
DFSG-compliant license, or in the public domain.
There are about 30 documents (and the stuff they document) whose
licensing status is less clear, and those are the ones that I have
some questions on. I have included some example
copyright/distribution statements based on those in this
``unknown'' category, and I would appreciate a quick take from
debian-legal habitues on whether they are DFSG-free, and, in
particular, whether we can continue to distribute files with
copyright/distribution statements similar to the examples.
I will be attempting to contact the authors of the files that
aren't DFSG-free to encourage them to clarify the licensing of
their works (probably we'll get LPPL for most, although I'm happy
to mention alternatives).
In the meantime, should we drop the possibly problematic files
from our packages, or can we continue distributing them on the
basis that we have been distributing them without problems thus
far, and that CTAN continues to include them in their ``free''
section? (Files that are egregiously non-DFSG-free will, of
course, be dropped.)
8--8--8--8--8--8--8- Begin Examples 8--8--8--8--8--8--8--
A.
Copying of part or all of this file is allowed under the following
conditions only:
(1) You may freely distribute unchanged copies of the
file. Please include the documentation when you do so.
(2) You may modify a renamed copy of the file, but only for
personal use or use within an organization.
(3) You may copy fragments from the file, for personal use or
for distribution, as long as credit is given where credit
is due.
You are NOT ALLOWED to take money for the distribution or use of
this file or modified versions or fragments thereof, except for a
nominal charge for copying etc.
B.
Copyright (C) 1995 John Doe
C.
Copyright (C) 1988, all rights reserved.
D.
Robert High 8.92 basic additions
Fred Howard 2.93 added cross-referencing and niceties
Kristen Kow5.93 fixed for LaTeXe2 and onwards.
Kristen Kow8.93 fixed for HTML converter, and added AMS tables
put material in exciting.sty
Kristen Kow1.94 fixed for LaTeX2e
Bill Smith 6.00 replaced reference to little.tex by little2e.tex
Original Copyright (C) Joan Dafis and Big School 1989
This is a supplement to:
Exciting LaTeX - Joan Dafis 02/88
- A B Christopher, MCC CBU August 1989
giving a brief overview of mathematical typesetting using LaTeX
- R.A. Morton 22/9/89
I reproduce here the copyright notice from Exciting LaTeX, the
same conditions apply to this document.
Permission is granted to reproduce the document in any way
providing that it is distributed for free, except for any
reasonable charges for printing, distribution, staff time, etc.
Direct commercial exploitation is not permitted. Extracts may
be made from this document providing an acknowledgement of the
original source is maintained.
E.
no statement of any kind
F.
Copyright (C) [1998] by Taylor French. All rights reserved.
dtx file also says
The usual GNU-style conditions apply: If you change it, you
take the blame; if you pass it on, pass on all present
conditions;
G.
This software was written as a personal project and comes with NO
WARRANTY of any kind, not even MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE. The author assumes no responsibility for any
use.
Copyright (C) 1997 Jane Roe
DISTRIBUTION: You are not allowed to distribute this file alone.
You are allowed to distribute this file under the condition that
it is distributed together with all the files listed herein. If
you receive only some of these files from someone, complain! NO
PERMISSION is granted to produce or to distribute a modified
version of this file or any of the ASCII files listed above under
their original name.
H.
This package is copyright \copyright~1989--1994 Charlie Varrick.
All rights are reserved. The moral right of the author has been
asserted. You are {\em not allowed\/} to take money for the
distribution or use of this file except for a nominal charge for
copying, etc. Redistribution of unchanged files is allowed
provided that the whole package is distributed.
I.
(c) Copyright 1997 Jean-Paul DuBois tous droits reserves.
Si vous desirez, distribuer ce document par FTP ou sur le WEB, ou
placer un pointeur vers ce dernier, merci de m'en informer par
e-mail et de me communiquer l'adresse correspondante.
Redistribution for profit, or in altered content/format prohibited
without permission of the author. Redistribution via printed book
or CDROM expressly prohibited without consent of the author. Any
other redistribution must include this copyright notice and
attribution.
8--8--8--8--8--8--8- End Examples
Re: teTeX Documentation Licenses
C.M. Connelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In the meantime, should we drop the possibly problematic files from our packages, or can we continue distributing them on the basis that we have been distributing them without problems thus far, and that CTAN continues to include them in their ``free'' section? (Files that are egregiously non-DFSG-free will, of course, be dropped.) Now that you've posted, we can't claim ignorance. :) I'll clarify my thoughts about each of the licenses in separate messages (with changed subjects, to hopefully keep it clearer).
Re: teTeX Documentation Licenses (A)
C.M. Connelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A. Copying of part or all of this file is allowed under the following conditions only: (1) You may freely distribute unchanged copies of the file. Please include the documentation when you do so. (2) You may modify a renamed copy of the file, but only for personal use or use within an organization. (3) You may copy fragments from the file, for personal use or for distribution, as long as credit is given where credit is due. You are NOT ALLOWED to take money for the distribution or use of this file or modified versions or fragments thereof, except for a nominal charge for copying etc. This license is not free. The last clause (the NOT ALLOWED one) is not allowed because it establishes a monetary limit on copying fees. The modification limitation (2) might prohibit even distribution of patches. If you don't need to patch the file, then it can certainly be in non-free. If you do need to patch the file, then we need to decide whether we are violating (2) or not. Thomas
Re: teTeX Documentation Licenses
On Mar 10, C.M. Connelly wrote: There are about 30 documents (and the stuff they document) whose licensing status is less clear, and those are the ones that I have some questions on. I have included some example copyright/distribution statements based on those in this ``unknown'' category, and I would appreciate a quick take from debian-legal habitues on whether they are DFSG-free, and, in particular, whether we can continue to distribute files with copyright/distribution statements similar to the examples. To the best of my knowledge, none of the attached licenses are DFSG-free, with the possible exception of the guy who goes on about GNU-style stuff (who needs to properly license the file). The one that's written in French I can't be certain of, but I suspect it's not DFSG-free either. Chris -- Chris Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.lordsutch.com/chris/
Re: teTeX Documentation Licenses (B, C)
C.M. Connelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: B. Copyright (C) 1995 John Doe C. Copyright (C) 1988, all rights reserved. All rights reserved is the magic phrase that is necessary to get copyright protection under the Pan-American copyright treaty. (And it's still relevant, because there are some countries which have signed the Pan-American treaty, and not the Berne Convention.) Debian's policy is not to cut such hairs, any claimed copyright we treat as if they claimed it properly. These files we cannot distribute at all (either as part of Debian or in non-free).
Re: teTeX Documentation Licenses (D)
C.M. Connelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: D. Robert High 8.92 basic additions Fred Howard 2.93 added cross-referencing and niceties Kristen Kow5.93 fixed for LaTeXe2 and onwards. Kristen Kow8.93 fixed for HTML converter, and added AMS tables put material in exciting.sty Kristen Kow1.94 fixed for LaTeX2e Bill Smith 6.00 replaced reference to little.tex by little2e.tex Original Copyright (C) Joan Dafis and Big School 1989 This is a supplement to: Exciting LaTeX - Joan Dafis 02/88 - A B Christopher, MCC CBU August 1989 giving a brief overview of mathematical typesetting using LaTeX - R.A. Morton 22/9/89 I reproduce here the copyright notice from Exciting LaTeX, the same conditions apply to this document. Permission is granted to reproduce the document in any way providing that it is distributed for free, except for any reasonable charges for printing, distribution, staff time, etc. Direct commercial exploitation is not permitted. Extracts may be made from this document providing an acknowledgement of the original source is maintained. We generally don't care about the list of contributors. We trust that the upstream maintainers have correctly gotten permission from contributors to include their changes under the license indicated. (We can't do any better, unless we insisted on seeing evidence of valid assignments or signed licenses, such as the FSF usually does.) The limitation on copying fees mean that these files cannot be in Debian, but they can be in the non-free archive.
Re: teTeX Documentation Licenses (E)
C.M. Connelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: E. no statement of any kind Depends on context. Either this is copyrighted, and we can't distribute it at all (just like cases B and C), or it's under the general copyright of the package. Thomas
Re: teTeX Documentation Licenses (F)
C.M. Connelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: F. Copyright (C) [1998] by Taylor French. All rights reserved. dtx file also says The usual GNU-style conditions apply: If you change it, you take the blame; if you pass it on, pass on all present conditions; We can distribute this as free software; he is referring to the GPL, of course. However, we should exert whatever leverage we can to get that made explicit. Thomas
Re: teTeX Documentation Licenses (G)
C.M. Connelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: G. This software was written as a personal project and comes with NO WARRANTY of any kind, not even MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. The author assumes no responsibility for any use. Copyright (C) 1997 Jane Roe DISTRIBUTION: You are not allowed to distribute this file alone. You are allowed to distribute this file under the condition that it is distributed together with all the files listed herein. If you receive only some of these files from someone, complain! NO PERMISSION is granted to produce or to distribute a modified version of this file or any of the ASCII files listed above under their original name. The modification restriction is no bother (we can just conform; it's really no different than require distribution as patches). I mean, of course, it's a bother, but not a *legal* bother, as long as we comply with the requirement. The bundling rule is of course, not DFSG free. (It's an invariant text rule, donchaknow!) But we can put it in non-free if we want.
Re: teTeX Documentation Licenses (H)
C.M. Connelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
H.
This package is copyright \copyright~1989--1994 Charlie Varrick.
All rights are reserved. The moral right of the author has been
asserted. You are {\em not allowed\/} to take money for the
distribution or use of this file except for a nominal charge for
copying, etc. Redistribution of unchanged files is allowed
provided that the whole package is distributed.
The financial restriction means it can't be in Debian.
We can put it in non-free, but only if we abide by the prohibition on
unchanged files.
Thomas
Re: teTeX Documentation Licenses (I)
C.M. Connelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I. (c) Copyright 1997 Jean-Paul DuBois tous droits reserves. Si vous desirez, distribuer ce document par FTP ou sur le WEB, ou placer un pointeur vers ce dernier, merci de m'en informer par e-mail et de me communiquer l'adresse correspondante. Redistribution for profit, or in altered content/format prohibited without permission of the author. Redistribution via printed book or CDROM expressly prohibited without consent of the author. Any other redistribution must include this copyright notice and attribution. The restriction on media and profit distribution means it's not eligible for Debian. We can put it in non-free, provided we abide by the prohibition on modification. Debian doesn't make printed books or CDROM's of non-free, so we're fine on that score.
Re: teTeX Documentation Licenses
On Sun, Mar 10, 2002 at 08:00:01PM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote: On Mar 10, C.M. Connelly wrote: There are about 30 documents (and the stuff they document) whose licensing status is less clear, and those are the ones that I have some questions on. I have included some example copyright/distribution statements based on those in this ``unknown'' category, and I would appreciate a quick take from debian-legal habitues on whether they are DFSG-free, and, in particular, whether we can continue to distribute files with copyright/distribution statements similar to the examples. To the best of my knowledge, none of the attached licenses are DFSG-free, with the possible exception of the guy who goes on about GNU-style stuff (who needs to properly license the file). The one that's written in French I can't be certain of, but I suspect it's not DFSG-free either. I. (c) Copyright 1997 Jean-Paul DuBois tous droits reserves. Si vous desirez, distribuer ce document par FTP ou sur le WEB, ou placer un pointeur vers ce dernier, merci de m'en informer par e-mail et de me communiquer l'adresse correspondante. Redistribution for profit, or in altered content/format prohibited without permission of the author. Redistribution via printed book or CDROM expressly prohibited without consent of the author. Any other redistribution must include this copyright notice and attribution. Translation of the French: ... all rights reserved. If you want to distribute this document by FTP or on the web, or link to it from the latter, please let me know by email and let me know what the address is. Since this is phrased as a request (merci de...), it may not by itself land the license on the non-free side of the line; but the English text that's also part of the license is pretty clearly non-free. Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgpYYyvaGMn8U.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: teTeX Documentation Licenses
On Sun, Mar 10, 2002 at 05:13:51PM -0800, C.M. Connelly wrote: I will be attempting to contact the authors of the files that aren't DFSG-free to encourage them to clarify the licensing of their works (probably we'll get LPPL for most, although I'm happy to mention alternatives). Please do. Please mention one or both of: 1) The Open Publication License, with none of the license options exercised; http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/ 2) The GNU Free Documentation License, with an explicit statement asserting that there are Invariants Sections, and no Cover Texts; http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html#TOC1 I've read the LPPL and I'm nervous about it, so I would not encourage the authors of these documents to adopt it. The two alternatives above are uncontroversially DFSG-free according to the denizens of this mailing list, as far as I've been able to tell. In the meantime, should we drop the possibly problematic files from our packages, Yes. or can we continue distributing them on the basis that we have been distributing them without problems thus far, Only due to ignorance. Now that we are aware of the problem, we must remove these materials from our distribution, or we are not honoring the Debian Social Contract. and that CTAN continues to include them in their ``free'' section? Other groups' definition of free is noteworthy and worthy of consideration when considering amendments to the DFSG, but not controlling. The only Free that matters to Debian for the purposed of our distribution is the one defined by the DFSG. (Files that are egregiously non-DFSG-free will, of course, be dropped.) While it's often fun to talk this way, strictly speaking there are no degrees of DFSG-freeness. A work is either licensed in a DFSG-free way or it is not. A license may need greater or lesser amounts of modification to satisfy the DFSG, but this isn't a guarantee of anything. Some people may have works that break every clause of the DFSG but will change their license to satisfy it if we bring the problem to their attention. Other people may have but a single word in their license that causes it to fail the DFSG, but they would sooner see the world burn than budge. Therefore, how close a work is to being DFSG-free is a poor indicator of how much work it will be to get that work relicensed. Copyright (C) [1998] by Taylor French. All rights reserved. dtx file also says The usual GNU-style conditions apply: If you change it, you take the blame; if you pass it on, pass on all present conditions; I disagree with Thomas Bushnell on this point. I don't think the usual GNU-style conditions is enough footing to protect us legally from charges of infringement by the aurhor, or from whoever may end up with the copyright to this work. With the above exception, I concur with Thomas's very thorough analysis. Unfortunately, I think all of the documents mention are going to have to be dropped from main until they can be relicensed in a way that is harmonious with the DFSG. -- G. Branden Robinson|I am sorry, but what you have Debian GNU/Linux |mistaken for malicious intent is [EMAIL PROTECTED] |nothing more than sheer http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |incompetence! -- J. L. Rizzo II pgpTICtS4O3qZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: teTeX Documentation Licenses
On Sun, Mar 10, 2002 at 11:19:35PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: 2) The GNU Free Documentation License, with an explicit statement asserting that there are Invariants Sections, and no Cover Texts; http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html#TOC1 Gar. 2) The GNU Free Documentation License, with an explicit statement asserting that there are no Invariant Sections, and no Cover Texts; http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html#TOC1 That's much better. -- G. Branden Robinson|Men use thought only to justify Debian GNU/Linux |their wrong doings, and speech only [EMAIL PROTECTED] |to conceal their thoughts. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Voltaire pgpQvZ5rEjlhc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: teTeX Documentation Licenses
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Copyright (C) [1998] by Taylor French. All rights reserved. dtx file also says The usual GNU-style conditions apply: If you change it, you take the blame; if you pass it on, pass on all present conditions; I disagree with Thomas Bushnell on this point. I don't think the usual GNU-style conditions is enough footing to protect us legally from charges of infringement by the aurhor, or from whoever may end up with the copyright to this work. I think this may be dangerous, but let's ask him before dropping it. The others we should drop now, but this one, I think, we can let slide until we get something more specific. We should say something like: Hey, do you mean to license this under the GPL? Can you do that directly in the correct way? (With a full explanation of what exactly that means.) Then if he says yes, we can await it (not forever, but can also safely hang on where we are now). If he says no, then that means he doesn't really want it under the usual GNU-style conditions, and we should drop it (and it wouldn't be able to be in non-free either).
Re: teTeX Documentation Licenses
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: With the above exception, I concur with Thomas's very thorough analysis. He's being so nice! Branden should run for DPL every month. Thomas
