FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 11-19-2007, 08:59 PM
Russ Allbery
 
Default What to do when the LaTeX sources are missing, but an XML equivalent was rewritten from scratch ?

Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at> 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 (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 11-19-2007, 10:32 PM
Joerg Jaspert
 
Default What to do when the LaTeX sources are missing, but an XML equivalent was rewritten from scratch ?

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 debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 11-20-2007, 02:45 PM
Marvin Renich
 
Default What to do when the LaTeX sources are missing, but an XML equivalent was rewritten from scratch ?

* Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at> [071119 17:28]:
[liberally snipped]
>
> 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.
>
> Do the DFSG apply to design???
>
> What does it mean that a design is free?
>
> 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?
>
> Best wishes
>
> Norbert
>

IANADD, but I am a Debian user, so let me provide an analogy that might
help clarify this.

If a software author designs a game, and this game is entirely his own
work (with a DFSG compatible license) except for one image file, which
has a "freely distributable but only without modifications" license.
This game would have to be distributed in non-free (not even contrib
would suffice).

We are assuming here that the one image file provides substantial
aesthetic appeal and the author believes the game to be "best viewed
when this image is included".

But the game otherwise has a DFSG compatible license, so the Debian
packager replaces the image with one that is DFSG-free. This game would
definitely be suitable for main.

There are, however, several ways that the Debian maintainer could help
the user get the free-beer image into the game. For one, he could
provide a script that would download the file from the internet.
Another solution would be to provide a separate package in non-free that
contained the image, and have the game Suggest: the non-free image
package (and, of course, automatically use the image if the non-free
package is installed).

So Charles (the OP) could include his XML-based docs in the package in
main, and create a separate package in non-free for the original docs
(provided that Debian can distribute them) if he thinks the difference
in aesthetic quality is worth the effort.

Let me also address your question about taking away rights vs. giving
rights. Debian does not promise to give its users all rights. Debian
does not even strive to provide its users with all software that is
freely distributable. It provides as much DFSG-free software as its
developers are willing and able to package. Not distributing something
that is not DFSG-free is not taking away rights, it is merely saying
that the user must exercise his own right to download it himself.

...Marvin


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 11-20-2007, 11:50 PM
Charles Plessy
 
Default What to do when the LaTeX sources are missing, but an XML equivalent was rewritten from scratch ?

Le Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 02:28:48PM -0800, Don Armstrong a écrit :
>
> 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.

Le Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 12:32:47AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert a écrit :
>
> And you know, our SC states "Debian will remain 100% free", it doesnt
> say Free Software.

> 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...

Le Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 10:45:03AM -0500, Marvin Renich a écrit :
>
> So Charles (the OP) could include his XML-based docs in the package in
> main, and create a separate package in non-free for the original docs
> (provided that Debian can distribute them) if he thinks the difference
> in aesthetic quality is worth the effort.

Dear all,

Indeed, because I do not see a positive outcome from this discussion, I
splitted the upstream sources between dialign-t_0.2.2.dfsg.orig.tar.gz
in which I removed the doc directory, and dialign-t-doc_0.2.2.orig.gz
that contains only the doc directory, the LGPL.TXT and LICENCE.TXT
files. The dialign-t-doc package has been uploaded to non-free despite
the fact that all its files are licenced under the LGPL, because it does
not satisfy the DFSG#2 under two assumptions that in my opinon are
wrong, but that I accept to follow since they seem to be majoritary in
Debian:

- There is no difference between the formatting instructions that shape
the text of a documentation and the code that determines the
behaviour of a program.

- There is no difference between a file for which the original author
never publically published intermediate steps in its creation, and a
file for wihch an intermediate has removed source code or formatting
instructions that have been published earlier.

The documentation of dialign-t lacks files that would make it easier to
update the html, pdf and ps files in parallel, this is regrettable, but
the information in these files is free and somebody who would want to
make a derived version of dialign-t still has plenty of options to
update the doc, in particular because what matters is not the format,
but the content.


PS: Somebody contributed me a latex file which is not the upstream one,
but which contains the information from the html documentation. Would
this file make the package acceptable for Debian ? Would the file need
to be in the tarball, or shipping it in the .diff.gz would be
sufficient?

Have a nice day,

--
Charles Plessy
http://charles.plessy.org
Wakō, Saitama, Japan


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 04:10 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org