[l2h] Maintenance of latex2html

[Roland Stigge]

Hi Ross,

On Thu, 2003-10-16 at 18:43, Ross Moore wrote:
> If someone has just copied other people's software, and has not even
> provided installation routines, nor *anything at all* that adds value
> to the collection more than the sum of the free pieces, then he/she
> has no moral right to charge for this, apart from the 'nominal'
> amount mentioned previously.

The GPL (and other OSI-approved licenses) effectively prevents this
scenario. The source code is available to virtually everyone, so there's
no need to worry. If someone tries to sell a single GPL'ed piece of
simple software of 1000 LOC for €100000, proper local law will lead to
punishment of this fraud.

> I find it hard to believe that Debian really regards this as an
> acceptable scenario, and would drop a package on that basis.

The scenario is not the intention of Debian. Actually, it was just my
personal (extreme) example to explain this issue. As stated, we have
clear guidelines (in fact, the same as the OSI) and that's no matter of
my personal view. If I wouldn't care about that, others would come and
say the same. In fact, there were suggestions to remove latex2html
obviously without consulting you. That was a clear trigger for me to
intervene ...

> > Instead, I suggest the complete removal of clause B. That would be the
> > final move to make latex2html DFSG-compliant.
> 
> That's too much to remove; I cannot do that.

Well, then let's go on to the next possibility ...

> > Alternatively, consider the adoption of an OSI-approved license as
> > suggested by Michael Chapman (and me, previously).
> 
> Many of the files in the LaTeX2HTML distribution are already under the
> GPL, so it may be acceptable to Nikos to put it all under this.

That would be great!

> But then other developers would have to be contacted too.

I assume it won't be me to do that. ;)

> > When the licensing issue is resolved (which is most important to
> > consider for the next Debian release), I'll come back with an assorted
> > list of bugs where I depend on your help. You are definitely not
> > responsible for all the bugs listed at Debian.
> >
> 
> I have a fix for the reported difficulty with \includegraphics
> on .jpg (and .png ?) images:
>    http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=183372
> 
> It's not committed to the repository yet.

Feel free to mail it to 183372 at bugs.debian.org to make it available to
everyone (including Debian ;) before the next latex2html release. As
stated by Jens Lehmann, this issue is important for many people.

> > > > It being at least _possible_ to charge $200 is exactly what Debian
> > > > requires from Free Software. Besides the GPL, please consider the LPPL
> > > > or any other free license approved at
> > > > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/.
> > >
> > > I believe it is possible to do this, with an aggregation of software
> > > packages, which is all that Debian requires, right ?
> >
> > See above.
> 
> We are not in agreement yet.

OK, I'm waiting for your decisions.

Thank you very much!

bye,
  Roland
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://tug.org/pipermail/latex2html/attachments/20031016/814b33ae/attachment.bin