[tldistro] [tex-live] TeX Live 2011 License Audit - Non Free Items [01/02]

[Norbert Preining]

Hi Tom,

thanks for your work, one comment I have:

On Mi, 14 Dez 2011, Tom Callaway wrote:
> * ec
> Reason: Red Hat Legal says the license is non-free, primarily because of
> the requirement that modifications must always be accompanied by
> unmodified originals.
> Importance: Jindrich says these are "sort of important fonts" in
> latex-recommended

Removing them sounds like a bad idea.

> * floatflt
> Reason: License is non-free due to explicit clause forbidding modification:
> 
> %  You may use the `floatflt' package freely, but at your own
> %  risk.  The authors of floatflt.dtx and floatflt.ins (the
> %  complete `floatflt' package distribution) can not be held
> %  responsible for any consequence of your using any of these
> %  files, or files created from these, including hardware,
> %  software, and data damage.  You may not make any changes to
> %  the files floatflt.dtx or floatflt.ins.  You are allowed to make
> %  changes to the `\documentclass' and/or `\usepackage' commands
> %  of the file `floatexm.tex'.  You may incorporate
> %  the code from these files in other files under different
> %  names, provided the original authors are given full credit for
> %  their work and that you yourself take the complaints from the
> %  user(s) of your file(s).  You may freely distribute the
> %  files floatflt.dtx and floatflt.ins, provided that you
> %  always distribute `floatflt.dtx' and `floatflt.ins' together
> %  at the same time.

Huuu, then we have to remove TeX, too? The "use the code but rename"
is generally accepted, even in Debian.

Here it is explicitely stated that
	"You may incorporate the code from these files in other 
         files under different names, ..."
So I don't see a real problem here: you create a new file (different name),
incorporate the full code, and then change it. 

> * fltpage
> Reason: License is poorly written and incomplete:
> 
>  % The usual disclaimers apply:  If it doesn't work right that's your
>  problem!
>  %
>  % The usual GNU-style conditions apply: If you change it, you take
>  % the blame; if you pass it on, pass on all present conditions;
> 
> There is no clearly stated permission to copy, modify, or distribute.
> Red Hat Legal agrees, this is non-free.
> Importance: Jindrich says this is safe to delete, in latex-extra.

Well, from my point of view I always want to understand the meaning
of the statement. We are speaking about packages that have been 
written long before this crazy license paranoia. And the above
statement clearly states that you can chage it, but you have
to take "the blame", i.e., saying that you made changes.

I consider that equivalent to PD.

> * gentle
> Reason: License explicitly forbids modification, non-free:
> 
> %% You should feel free to photocopy and/or distribute this manual.
> %% My only request is that it remain in one piece and not be chopped
> %% up.  The only machine dependent section (#1.2) may need to be
> %% rewritten for your local site, of course.
> 
> Importance: English documentation, safe to simply delete.

That is unhappy, I guess w have to remove the en doc.

> * kalender
> Reason: No clear license. Closest thing is this:
> 
> Dieser Style darf uebernommen oder geandert werden, aber nur mit Nennung
> des Orginalautors
> 
> which means:
> 
> This style may be applied or changed, but only while mentioning the
> original author.
> 
> Unfortunately, that is not sufficient to meet the criteria for a free
> license, due to a lack of copying or redistribution permission.
> Importance: Unsure. Part of German Language collection.

See above remarks.

> * midnight
> Reason: This is the license:
> 
> %	You can use these macros to typeset documents. You may
> %	distribute this file freely, provided that you also distribute
> %	the accompanying documentation.
> %	    You may make changes to this file, or extract portions
> %	of it for inclusion in other files, provided that
> %	    (1) you change the name of the file;
> %	    (2) you give proper credit and include copyright
> %		information where applicable;
> %	    (3) explain how an unchanged version can be obtained; and
> %	    (4) document the usage of your macros/changes (if usage
> %		of your macros is not worth documenting, they must not
> %		be worth using).
> %	You are not allowed to use the name ``Midnight Macros'' for
> %	any changed files.
> %	    The above rules for making changes do not apply where it
> %	is explicitly noted in this file that something can be changed
> %	to conform to your local installation.
> 
> It is non-free, because it forces you to distribute only with the
> accompanying documentation.
> Importance: Low, part of the generic extra collection, should be safe to
> delete.

Again, remark from above applies, renaming is allowed and then the
clauses do not apply.

> * ogham
> Reason: Could not find a license. Forced to assume it is non-free.
> Importance: Very low, part of the extra fonts collection, adds support
> for an extremely archaic and dead language, should be safe to delete.

"extremely archaic and dead language" - another example would be "latin"?
	"Don't be hasty!" 
comes to my mind.

Best wishes

Norbert
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Norbert Preining            preining@{jaist.ac.jp, logic.at, debian.org}
JAIST, Japan                                 TeX Live & Debian Developer
DSA: 0x09C5B094   fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76  A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The suit into which the man's body had been stuffed looked
as if it's only purpose in life was to demonstrate how
difficult it was to get this sort of body into a suit.
                 --- Douglas Adams, The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy