[l2h] Maintenance of latex2html

Ross Moore ross at ics.mq.edu.au
Thu Oct 16 13:12:31 CEST 2003


Hi Roland,

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003, Roland Stigge wrote:

> Hello Ross,
>
> thanks for your reply.
>
> On Wed, 2003-10-15 at 02:29, Ross Moore wrote:
> > Nikos has had nothing to do with the LaTeX2HTML software since
> > 1996 or so.
> > The license statement has not been changed since then.
>
> I wonder if (and fear that) any change to it would be needed to be
> supported by him because of him beeing the only original author
> mentioned in LICENSE. (Call me nit-picking but that's the way Debian
> cares about licensing issues, as Chris and Steve pointed out. They
> correctly got the point.)
>
> > > Ross Moore (extended the package)
> >  That's me; most, but not all,  changes since 1998 have been through me.
>
> Great. I've got it! :)

OK; I've contacted Nikos and he is not averse to small changes in the
license statement, provided that he gets to see them first, of course.
I'd like to keep any such to be minimal, and without changing the
intention of keeping the software `free' (in the GPL free-speech way,
and as expressed on  http://www.debian.org/intro/free/ .

Also, I've looked at some of your bug reports at Debian,
in particular:
  http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=204684

and read the DFSG guidelines at:
  http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines

I do not agree that the current license statement, taken overall,
violates rules 1, 3 and 4, as you stated. So the difference in
opinion is perhaps due to a lack of clarity in the wording, which
allows for a different interpretation when not all clauses in
the agreement are considered together.

So let us attempt to find the minimal set of changes which would
allow Debian to distribute the LaTeX2HTML software.


The following is the core of the License statement, where
you (Debian) are not satisfied.


Use and copying of this software and the preparation of derivative
works based on this software are permitted, so long as the following
conditions are met:

A  The copyright notice and this entire notice are included intact
   and prominently carried on all copies and supporting documentation.
B  No fees or compensation are charged for use, copies, or
   access to this software. You may charge a nominal
   distribution fee for the physical act of transferring a
   copy, but you may not charge for the program itself.
C  If you modify this software, you must cause the modified
   file(s) to carry prominent notices (a Change Log)
   describing the changes, who made the changes, and the date
   of those changes.
D  Any work distributed or published that in whole or in part
   contains or is a derivative of this software or any part
   thereof is subject to the terms of this agreement. The
   aggregation of another unrelated program with this software
   or its derivative on a volume of storage or distribution
   medium does not bring the other program under the scope
   of these terms.


(I've relabelled the bullet-points as A, B C, D for easier reference.)

You find objection to clause B, claiming that this violates DFSG 1.
Yet for a distribution such as Debian, surely clause D must be read
as well.
To me, this has the intention of allowing the free distribution of
LaTeX2HTML within an "aggregation" of other software programs, as
required by DFSG 1.

Taken with clause B, you cannot charge more than a 'nominal' amount
for distributing LaTeX2HTML alone, but you are not restricted in the
amount when distributing it as part of an aggregation such as
RedHat, SuSE, Debian, TeXLive, fink, iInstaller, etc.

To make this clearer, perhaps clause B could be extended with a similar
statement about aggregations, as appears in D ?

Alternatively, would it be sufficient to simply remove the adjective
`nominal' ?



DFSG 3 states:

* Derived Works
  The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow
  them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the
  original software.

In what way do you see the LaTeX2HTML license as violating this ?


DFSG 4 states:
* Integrity of The Author's Source Code
  The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified
  form _only_ if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with
  the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time.
  The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from
  modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a
  different name or version number from the original software. (This is a
  compromise. The Debian group encourages all authors not to restrict any
  files, source or binary, from being modified.)


This one is a bit harder for LaTeX2HTML, since the fact that (almost)
all files are Perl scripts. These are all 'source code' to be used
as is --- there is no explicit compilation stage, apart from some
customisations which occur upon installation.

The nature of LaTeX2HTML is to work in conjunction with other software
already on the local system, in particular a TeX installation.
The file  prefs.pm  is provided explicitly to allow customisation
for local conditions. It is perfectly OK, indeed *expected*,
that this file be modified for redistribution with an aggregation
where it is known in advance what other software components are
(going to be) available.

For example, one of the bug-reports for LaTeX2HTML at Debian
suggests that it would be a good idea to make the  latex2html
module depend upon teTeX. While this might be reasonable for
a Debian distribution, it is not appropriate for this requirement
to be encoded into LaTeX2HTML itself, for general (non-Debian)
distribution. Debian could do this within its package-distribution
mechanism, accompanied by changes to  prefs.pm  to enforce that
dependency within the installed software.

In fact precisely this is done for TeXLive distributions; there
is a file  texlive.pm  in the LaTeX2HTML distribution which
contains appropriate customisations. This is for the convenience
of system administrators, or anyone wishing to devise a similar
customised distribution, as an example of what can/should be
done in a particular context.


It is perfectly OK for LaTeX2HTML to be distributed along with
other software which ensures that it is installed correctly;
e.g.  to work with other software provided in an aggregation.
That software can be written to apply patches to the "standard"
distribution as part of the installation.


In general, it would *not* be appropriate to distribute changed
versions of library files under a different name;
e.g. styles/comment.perl  changed to  styles/Dcomment.perl
since this would require changes within existing LaTeX documents
 \usepackage{comment}  -->  \usepackage{Dcomment}
to make use of the changed package. But then this would also
require creating an appropriate  Dcomment.sty  for LaTeX.
This just becomes extremely inconvenient for LaTeX/LaTeX2HTML
users.

If it is necessary to distribute such changed versions of
existing packages, then it should be done by either:

  1.  automating edits or relinking/renaming of the library
      files as part of a customised installation procedure;
or
  2.  submitting the proposed changes to the LaTeX2HTML
      developers, (e.g. via email to  latex2html at tug.org )
      to become part of the standard distribution.

This apparent 'lack of freedom' in the use of names is not
intended to be a license restriction, but just a practical
consequence of the kind of job that the software performs.


If you think that this kind of issue requires adding a clause
into the License statement, then please make a suggestion
as to how it should be worded.


>
> > OK; since I don't work through the Debian site, I'm not aware of these
> > so-called 'bugs'.
>
> That's perfectly OK. Also the fact that many of them are "bogus" bugs.
> I'm sorry that Debian wasn't very active on this the last months. It
> would be great if you could help us a bit with the mentioned list, but I
> recommend to first sort out the licensing issue. I volunteer to adopt
> the Debian package but won't invest more time first if Debian finally
> has to drop latex2html because of the license clause (which would
> actually be really bad).

Yes; it would be most unfortunate for Debian to drop a package which
many people find to be very useful.

I think the intended freedom is clear, so it should be just a matter
of ensuring that the wording of the license really does convey this
unambiguously.


> > Now, I've just seen the current discussion on licensing, and agree
> > with the poster who said that it is mostly just nit-picking.
>
> But please note that Steve also clearly pointed out the problem.
> Intellectual property right is always nit-picking to some amount. :)
> Please consider that IMHO other distributions have the same problem.
> Some just don't care about certain licensing issues until someone points
> them out.

That's probably true. :)


> > 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. [...]
>
> Well, that would be your personal view (some on the list also pointed
> out the difference). If the license phrasing doesn't change, Debian will
> definitely remove latex2html from the distribution, and I actually
> couldn't do anything against that.

Yes, but on the list, only one clause was quoted, not the full
paragraph with all 4 clauses. That could well allow a different
interpretation.

>
> > 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.
>
> 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 ?

>
> > Charging $200 for a process that installs LaTeX2HTML correctly,
> > for use in another overall process, is not something that I would
> > object to.
>
> In fact, the result would be the same for you. Someone making profit
> (indirectly) from your work. But that's another issue.

The difference lies in the client knowing what (s)he is paying for,
hence what kind of support (s)he has a right to expect, and how
to obtain it.


> > 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.
>
> Contrary to the latex2html license, the GPL (and the other mentioned
> licenses) fits our needs, here.


> > 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.
>
> I invite you to! And all the readers of this list.

Fine.
That's what this message is.

I await your reply, and invite comments from all other
interested parties.


Best regards

	Ross


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


More information about the latex2html mailing list