Hi Norbert, Norbert Preining wrote:
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!
Ok, I'm convinced. I'll try to work this out soon-ish, but not this year anymore. For the cont-ext files, I want to set up some automated system based on the contextgarden.net information. That way, I won't have to think about adding stuff manually, but it takes some time to create and test the scripting.
./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.
This is clear to me now, I read your later email about the context and context-nonfree packages.
Taco, thanks a lot for your work and all the best
Thank you too, for all your effort in packaging context. Best wishes, Taco