Hi Taco! On Fre, 22 Dez 2006, Taco Hoekwater wrote:
I had to go through this for TeXLive proper as well. Can't you
Oh, sorry I missed this. Was it on the tex-live list? If yes, then all this is my fault, if no, hmm, still sorry.
Anyway, here is my list of remarks. I apologise beforehand if I sound a bit unfriendly here or there, I do not completely agree
No problem, I understand this. But OTOH see that we are bound to the rules, too, even ...
with DFSG (especially where it comes to requiring sources for documentation) and that tends to show through in my prose. Also,
... if I, too, don't agree about the documentation stuff. In fact I agree half-way: I want to have the source code, even if some commercial fonts are missing etc and would still consider this DFSG free. In fact I started a discussion about it some time ago, since I believe it is better to have (as an example): fontinstallationguide.tex fontinstallationguide.pdf where the pdf contains some commercial fonts. The user still has the source code, can do anything with it, AND has a beautiful/readable/whatever document for printing. I am often missing some "common sense" in these discussion, but OTOH I understand that on the larger scale of a whole distribution this is something a bit more complicated. Anyway, for your remarks!
I am becoming worn out.
Sorry for that.
First cont-img.zip:
All images in cont-img are GPLv2.
Good.
cont-fnt contains a huge bunch of vf/afm/tfm/map files. I assume that they were generated from some fontinst source, but this is missing.
No, they were not, and there is no "missing source". The vf/tfm/map were generated using the texfont program, which does not use source files. The afms were created using ttf2afm, which uses ttfs as source.
Thanks for clarification.
Anyway, there is no accompanying readme or whatsoever besides the one for lucida.
All the files in cont-fnt are GPLv2.
Thanks.
cont-ext seems to be ok besides a few points: t-lettrine.tex does not have a license statement
Yes, it does. Top of file. PD. Perhaps you missed another then?
Missed, sorry.
t-urwgaramond, type-urwgaramond,
Peter, can you add the license statement and re-upload? (it is GPL, according to Peter's own license statement on the contextgarden page for this module)
Thanks.
type-urwgothic: no license statement
PD, but I forgot to add the statement, sorry.
A different thing is that the sources of many doc are not included:
All the demo and doc files are generated by running texexec in "module" resp. "demo" mode on the actual macro sources, so the source is already included (just like .dtx files are the source of many latex packages' documentation)
AHHHHHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Umpf, didn't know this. Well, as I said, I am new to ConTeXt ;-)
Best would actually be to put a files MANIFEST.GPL, MANIFEST.PD, MANIFEST.CC-plus-ND into all the zip files. This way we could just forget about all this and ONLY if you add a file you have to update the MANIFEST.*.
Does this sound reasonable?
Sure, but only if you can promise this *will be* the end of it. Otherwise, it only adds even more of a hassle (it seems whatever we do, it is never quite enough).
To be honest: This is the way MOST projects go. And with a statement like this Debian Developers normally are more than content, they are happy: It is NOT our job to check every single file. If upstream gives a statement, we believe it. But it should be mentioned somewhere. Yes, if you do this and keep it up to date, that would make it perfectly simple for all of us: - I just package everything which is DFSG compatible into context - I just package the rest into context-nonfree - The copyright statements includes the licenses as given and refers to the relevant MANIFEST files. As I said, it would help us (Debian) a lot, and I am sure it would also help other distributions (TeX Live) a lot, because it is clear what can be included and which conditions!
./doc/context/third/lettrine/W.pdf source missing
It is an image. If it would make you feel better, I can convert it to png format, but then I would have to include the pdf as the source of the png, wouldn't I? ;-)
Well, the original source is I assume the respective MetaFont source of Yannis Haralambous, but let's forget about it.
./doc/context/document/general/manuals/tiptrick.pdf NOSOURCE
Do you prefer to have no file at all? Or is NOSOURCE better than nothing? Consider that if these PDF documents were created using InDesign, there would not even exist a source, anywhere.
As I said, I *cannot* include it into context, but I WILL it include, as with the rest of the ConTeXt documentation into context-nonfree so that people WILL have everything available. The difference between normal and non-free in Debian is (only) that the later one is non officially part of Debian, but is still distributed via the Debian mirror system, so easily available.
From the entire list of pdfs, I believe this is the only one that really does not have a source included where there could reasonably be expected to be a source avaible somewhere.
Thanks a lot.
CC-plus-ND the following: ./doc/fonts/hoekwater/koeieletters/koeieletters.rme
"Anything starting with koei" -> CC-ND is correct (like you said in another message). There was one in this list by mistake:
Yup.
./fonts/map/pdftex/context/original-adobe-euro.map
that should be GPL.
My error.
Taco, thanks a lot for your work and all the best
Norbert
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Norbert Preining