[l2h] Maintenance of latex2html

[Ross Moore]

Hello Roland,


On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Roland Stigge wrote:

> Hi,
>
> regarding the license issue, who's the current official maintainer of
> latex2html and/or responsible for licensing issues?
>
> I found different names:
> Nikos Drakos (author mentioned in LICENSE)
Nikos has had nothing to do with the LaTeX2HTML software since
1996 or so.
The license statement has not been changed since then.

> Ross Moore (extended the package)
 That's me; most, but not all,  changes since 1998 have been through me.

> Marek Rouchal (also listed in docs)
 Marek is the contact at the physical site where the repository is
located.

> John Turner (latex2html.org)
 John owns the name  latex2html.org .

>
> Unfortunately, the changelogs (of the version 2002-2-1) stop at v98.1.
>
> At Debian, there are quite some latex2html bugs open [1], many of them
> "upstream" related, i.e. maybe interesting for the current primary
> latex2html maintainer. A few are even tagged as "forwarded" some years
> ago to this list and Ross Moore.

OK; since I don't work through the Debian site, I'm not aware of these
so-called 'bugs'. Any that have been reported via the latex2html mailing
list have been fixed, or the mis-use explained to the poster.
If that doesn't make it back to Debian, then that's my concern, sorry.

Mostly the things reported as 'bugs' with use of LaTeX2HTML are due
either to inadequacies in the local installation, or are in fact
due to the differences in what can be achieved with HTML and other
page-layout formats. The latex2html mailing list is the perfect place
to get help on such issues.



Now, I've just seen the current discussion on licensing, and agree
with the poster who said that it is mostly just nit-picking.

The wording of the statement to which you object does not, in my mind,
prevent you from distributing LaTeX2HTML as a free addition to anything
else.
Nor does it prevent a commercial developer from using LaTeX2HTML
as part of a workflow for some other software process, and charging
for the other parts of that process --- including any scripts that
make the calls to run LaTeX2HTML.

Put differently...

It is just the LaTeX2HTML distribution itself that cannot be charged-for.
I would object to seeing a cost-listing that includes something like:
  LaTeX2HTML $200
when all that the commercial distributor has done is to include
the software on a CDROM.

Charging $200 for a process that installs LaTeX2HTML correctly,
for use in another overall process, is not something that I would
object to. However, it should be made clear to a client that this
is what they are paying for, and it is up to them to decide
whether or not they are getting their money's-worth.


Like the GPL, the license is not meant to be an impediment to the
distribution or use of the software, but just a way of ensuring
that credit remains with those who did the work.


I'm happy to discuss this further, but a change in the license
should be discussed on the LaTeX2HTML mailing list, before any
action be taken.


Best regards

	Ross Moore

>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> bye,
>   Roland
>

Thanks for this -- I'll take a look:
> [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?src=latex2html
>