Bug#345604: [tex-live] Re: ConTeXt documentation in "commercial" products

Frank Küster frank at kuesterei.ch
Tue Jan 24 14:42:26 CET 2006

Hans Hagen <pragma at wxs.nl> wrote:

> Karl Berry wrote:
>>The main point of free documentation is to allow, in principle, someone
>>who makes changes to the free software it describes to also update the
>>documentation.  Distributing pdf's doesn't allow that.  Making a
>>good-faith effort to distribute sources (even if not necessarily
>>complete / guaranteed to run) does.
> i'd say: write a new or additional manual -)
> btw, the fact that tex distributions seems to differ slightly (just
> read messages on the context list about installing tex on linux) does
> not mean that those who change things also document things; in the end
> the questions come to the source of the program ...
> also, if users take pieces of manuals, rewrite it, make better manuals
> ... fine for me, as long as no-one bothers me ... my main point is
> that i don't want to be responsible for that and that i don't want to
> let users be confused about what version is 'the real one'

This is a worthwile goal, but I fear it must be enforced rather by
social pressure than by law.  And the CC license you chose doesn't
enforce it, anyway.

> i bet that there are pdf's (and maybe html's) in texlive with no sources -)

I won't bet against this; but we are about to start a big "check the
docs" effort for the Debian packages (of texlive and teTeX), and will
approach all the authors where no source is available.

Regards, Frank
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)

More information about the tex-live mailing list