[tex-live] License questions: dvi2tty and vita

[Robin Fairbairns]

Alexander Cherepanov <cherepan at mccme.ru> wrote:

> A couple of more serious license questions.
> 
> --- dvi2tty ----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> From README:
> 
>   The program is basicly an improved C version of the pascal
>   program written by Svante Lindahl (see README.ORG).
> 
>   ...
> 
>   dvi2tty is licensed under the GPL version 2. It has had a history of many
>   authors, I am just one of the latest maintainers.
> 
> From dvi2tty.c:
> 
>    * dvitty - get an ascii representation of a dvi-file, suitable for ttys
>    *
>    * This program, and any documentation for it, is copyrighted by Svante
>    * Lindahl. It may be copied for non-commercial use only, provided that
>    * any and all copyright notices are preserved.
>    *
>    *
>    * UUCP: {seismo,mcvax,cernvax,diku,ukc,unido}!enea!ttds!zap
>    * ARPA: enea!ttds!zap at seismo.CSS.GOV
>    *  or   Svante_Lindahl_NADA%QZCOM.MAILNET at MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
>    * EAN:  zap at cs.kth.sunet
>    */

etc.

i asked about this, and was assured that the current maintainer had
taken it over on the basis that he was going to make the program free
software.

> [...]
> 
> From the Catalogue (dvi2tty.xml):
> 
>   <license type='gpl' checked='2009-06-15' file='dvi2tty.c'
>            version='3.5.1' username='robin'
>            note='the nocommercial claim is supposedly trumped by the
>                  later gpl one'/>
> 
> Are there any reasons for such a note, some more background? Mentioned
> terms (quoted above) are from different authors so it doesn't look
> like a confusion on the part of a (single) copyright holder but more
> like a confusion of a later author about previous terms. Looks more
> like 'undistributable' to me.

see above.

> ---- vita ------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> From the Catalogue (vita.xml):
> 
>   <license type='other-free' note='just..."do not distribute modified
>                                    version"'
>            checked='2009-01-01' file='vita.cls'
>            version='1996-10-09' username='robin'/>
> 
> From vita.cls:
> 
>   %% (C) Copyright 1995, Andrej Brodnik, ABrodnik at UWaterloo.CA. All
>   %% rights reserved.
>   %%
>   %% This is a generated file. Permission is granted to to customize the
>   %% declarations in this file to serve the needs of your installation.
>   %% However, no permission is granted to distribute a modified version of
>   %% this file under its original name.
> 
> First, "This is a generated file" but it contains enough comments to
> not be classified as "nosource", right? Second, there is no explicit 
> permission to distribute a modified version. It's somewhat like 
> knuthian terms but calorie.sty with very similar terms is classified 
> as other-nonfree (see below).

sigh. needs further work...  after term has started and my cascade of
mailer work is done.

> ---- calorie ---------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Not in texlive, for comparison.)
> 
> From calorie.sty:
> 
>   %  Copyright (c) 1994 by Shuji Aonuma.
>   %  Reports or requests to aonuma at kodama.issp.u-tokyo.ac.jp
>   %
>   %  Unchanged copies of this file may be freely distributed.
>   %  You may modify a renamed copy of this file.
> 
> From the Catalogue (calorie.xml):
> 
>   <license type='other-nonfree' checked='2009-04-26' file='calorie.sty'
>            version='1.3' username='robin'
>            note='distribute modified version only after name change'/>

this just hasn't been swept up.  karl tells me he's willing to accept
packages with nomodify clauses.  strictly speaking, nomodify => nonfree,
but "other-free" is really a tex live licence.

robin