Debian Bug report logs - #153257
tetex-bin: License contradictions

Package: texlive-binaries; Maintainer for texlive-binaries is Debian TeX Maintainers <debian-tex-maint@lists.debian.org>; Source for texlive-binaries is src:texlive-bin.

Reported by: "Richard Braakman" <dark@xs4all.nl>

Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 10:48:01 UTC

Severity: normal

Done: Frank Kuester <frank@kuesterei.ch>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Toggle useless messages

View this report as an mbox folder, status mbox, maintainer mbox


Report forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>, tetex-bin@packages.qa.debian.org:
Bug#153257; Package tetex-bin. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to "Richard Braakman" <dark@xs4all.nl>:
New Bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>, tetex-bin@packages.qa.debian.org. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: "Richard Braakman" <dark@xs4all.nl>
To: "Debian Bug Tracking System" <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: tetex-bin: License contradictions
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 13:44:20 +0300
Package: tetex-bin
Version: 1.0.7+20011202-7
Severity: normal


The copyright file in tetex-bin has this statement:

  tex.web and mf.web mustn't be edited without changing the name of the
  files.

However, the license statements at the top of those files do not give
*any* permission to edit them, regardless of whether the name is changed.
What's up?  Do you have additional permissions that are not stated
in those files?


In addition, the copyright file has this statement:

  The individual parts of this distribution often have their own
  copyright. Please look into the respective files for their copyright.

This is not enough; the full license terms must be in the copyright
file.  (See Debian Policy section 13.6).  Certainly it's a lot of
work to find all the licenses, but
  a) the package maintainer has to do this anyway, to make sure that
     the licenses meet the DFSG, and
  b) it's better if one person does this work once, than that everyone
     who wants to know the license terms has to do it.


Thanks,

Richard Braakman




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>, tetex-bin@packages.qa.debian.org:
Bug#153257; Package tetex-bin. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to "C.M. Connelly" <c@eskimo.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>, tetex-bin@packages.qa.debian.org. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #10 received at 153257@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: "C.M. Connelly" <c@eskimo.com>
To: Richard Braakman <dark@xs4all.nl>, 153257@bugs.debian.org
Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org, "C.M. Connelly" <c@eskimo.com>
Subject: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 01:16:37 -0700
"RB" == Richard Braakman <dark@xs4all.nl>


    RB> On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 10:54:54AM -0500, Jeff Licquia
    RB> wrote:
    >> That would be a problem, in my opinion.  Unfortunately, I'm
    >> having trouble verifying the TeX licensing situation, so I
    >> can't comment on the status of TeX in Debian.  I'll check
    >> that file out if I can find it.

    RB> It's in the source of tetex-bin (texk/web2c/tex.web).
    RB> I've already filed bug#153257 to ask about it.

So far as I know, Thomas Esser, teTeX's upstream, does not have
special privileges for redistributing Knuth's .web files, nor does
Olaf Weber, the current maintainer of the Web2C distribution of
TeX, which Thomas Esser's teTeX uses as its core.

Web2C is distributed under the GPL, but the introduction to the
Web2C manual (available in /usr/share/info/web2c.info-1.gz or
/usr/share/doc/texmf/programs/web2c.pdf.gz) says the
following:

   Availability: All of Web2c is freely available---"free" both in
   the sense of no cost (free ice cream) and of having the source
   code to modify and/or redistribute (free speech). (See section
   `unixtex.ftp' in Kpathsea, for the practical details of how to
   obtain Web2c.) Different parts of the Web2c distribution have
   different licensing terms, however, reflecting the different
   circumstances of their creation; consult each source file for
   exact details. The main practical implication for
   redistributors of Web2c is that the executables are covered by
   the GNU Public License, and therefore anyone who gets a binary
   distribution must also get the sources, as explained by the
   terms of the GPL (see section `Copying' in Kpathsea). The GPL
   covers the Web2c executables, including tex, because the Free
   Software Foundation sponsored the initial development of the
   Kpathsea library that Web2c uses. The basic source files from
   Stanford, however, have their own copyright terms or are in the
   public domain, and are not covered by the GPL.

I don't think that that explanation really clears anything up with
regard to redistributing or modifying TeX itself.


    RB> In addition, the copyright file has this statement:
    RB>
    RB>   The individual parts of this distribution often have
    RB>   their own copyright. Please look into the respective
    RB>   files for their copyright.
    RB>
    RB> This is not enough; the full license terms must be in the
    RB> copyright file.  (See Debian Policy section 13.6).
    RB> Certainly it's a lot of work to find all the licenses, but
    RB>
    RB>   a) the package maintainer has to do this anyway, to make
    RB>      sure that the licenses meet the DFSG, and

We've been relying on Thomas Esser to ensure that the files he's
distributing are DFSG-free, with help from us.  Thomas has
repeatedly stated his commitment to getting teTeX into a
completely DFSG-free state and maintaining it as DFSG-free, and
he's doing a pretty good job.


    RB>   b) it's better if one person does this work once, than
    RB>      that everyone who wants to know the license terms has
    RB>      to do it.

I've actually done much of the required work as part of the
(documentation) license review I conducted a few months back.
There actually turned out to be relatively few different licenses,
and if we need to list them all in the copyright files for the
packages, we can do that.  (I had actually done just that for
tetex-base, tetex-extra, and tetex-doc at one point, but pulled
the changes before checking them in.  I can't recall why now, but
I suspect it had something to do with our dropping many of the
files with nonstandard licenses.)

Policy is unclear on whether merely listing the licenses is
sufficient, or whether we have to include both the licenses and a
list of every file that falls under those licenses.  (My reading
is that Policy assumes that there will only be one copyright
statement/license for a package.)

   Claire

+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
 Man cannot be civilised, or be kept civilised by what he does in his
	    spare time; only by what he does as his work.
			     W.R. Lethaby
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
  C.M. Connelly               c@eskimo.com                   SHC, DS
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+



Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>, tetex-bin@packages.qa.debian.org:
Bug#153257; Package tetex-bin. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to "C.M. Connelly" <c@eskimo.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>, tetex-bin@packages.qa.debian.org. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #15 received at 153257@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: "C.M. Connelly" <c@eskimo.com>
To: Richard Braakman <dark@xs4all.nl>, 153257@bugs.debian.org
Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 01:34:43 -0700
Knuth's famous letter outlining his plans for further development
of TeX appeared in TUGboat, and also appeared in comp.text.tex in
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3c2q2h%24oj1%40sifon.cc.mcgill.ca>.

The most relevant sections appear to me to be

   I have put these systems into the public domain so that people
   everywhere can use the ideas freely if they wish. I have also
   spent thousands of hours trying to ensure that the systems
   produce essentially identical results on all computers. I
   strongly believe that an unchanging system has great value,
   even though it is axiomatic that any complex system can be
   improved. Therefore I believe that it is unwise to make further
   `improvements' to the systems called \TeX\ and \MF. Let us
   regard these systems as fixed points, which should give the
   same results 100~years from now that they produce today.

   [deletia]

   As stated on the copyright pages of Volumes~B, D, and~E,
   anybody can make use of my programs in whatever way they wish,
   as long as they do not use the names \TeX, \MF, or Computer
   Modern. In particular, any person or group who wants to produce
   a program superior to mine is free to do so. However, nobody is
   allowed to call a system \TeX\ or \MF\ unless that system
   conforms 100\%\ to my own programs, as I have specified in the
   manuals for the trip and trap tests. And nobody is allowed to
   use the names of the Computer Modern fonts in Volume~E for any
   fonts that do not produce identical {\tt.tfm} files. This
   prohibition applies to all people or machines, whether
   appointed by TUG or by any other organization. I do not intend
   to delegate the responsibility for maintainance of \TeX, \MF,
   or Computer Modern to anybody else, ever.

I read this statement as saying that anyone can do anything they
want with the code in the .web files, so long as they don't call
the resulting systems/fonts TeX, METAFONT, or Computer Modern.

Unless, of course, the pseudo-TeX or pseudo-METAFONT systems pass
the trip and trap tests, in which case they *can* be called TeX or
METAFONT, respectively.

In other words, despite what it says in the individual files, I
think that we don't have any problems distributing TeX.

   Claire

+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
 Man cannot be civilised, or be kept civilised by what he does in his
	    spare time; only by what he does as his work.
			     W.R. Lethaby
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
  C.M. Connelly               c@eskimo.com                   SHC, DS
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>, tetex-bin@packages.qa.debian.org:
Bug#153257; Package tetex-bin. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Frank Mittelbach <frank.mittelbach@latex-project.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>, tetex-bin@packages.qa.debian.org. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #20 received at 153257@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Frank Mittelbach <frank.mittelbach@latex-project.org>
To: "C.M. Connelly" <c@eskimo.com>
Cc: Richard Braakman <dark@xs4all.nl>, 153257@bugs.debian.org, debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 10:54:37 +0200
C.M. Connelly writes:
 > I read this statement as saying that anyone can do anything they
 > want with the code in the .web files, so long as they don't call
 > the resulting systems/fonts TeX, METAFONT, or Computer Modern.

Knuth is unfortunately (or fortunately if you go by the legal content only?)
somewhat inprecise by using words like "public domain" together with
"copyrighted" etc.

what seems to me important, however, is that he explicitly refers to the
copyright pages of the Computers and Typesetting series B, D, and E and those
pages do not only require:

 > Unless, of course, the pseudo-TeX or pseudo-METAFONT systems pass
 > the trip and trap tests, in which case they *can* be called TeX or
 > METAFONT, respectively.

but explicitly state, for example: "However, use of the name `METAFONT' is
restricted to software systems that agree exactly with the program presented
here'.

In other words, the trip and trap tests are necessary but not sufficent
conditions to allow a program to call itself TeX or METAFONT. It is supposed
to be 100% the original program, eg additional features render it invalid and
this is something Knuth has stated over and over again.

The copyright page for volume E (fonts) is even stronger  in requesting that
any fonts cmr10, cmbx10, ... are supposed to be fully compatible in metrics
and encoding to be allowed to use these names.

 > In other words, despite what it says in the individual files, I
 > think that we don't have any problems distributing TeX.

I also think that you should have no problems distributing TeX etc, as I think
they are free under DSFG (you can freely change the stuff, reuse parts of it,
etc as long as you rename the resulting files). However I think it would be a
poor solution to argue legally that you are able to ignore Don's explicit
wishes simply because he is a Computer Scientist rather than a lawyer and was
unable to write it up in legal lingua without potential loopholes

frank



Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>, tetex-bin@packages.qa.debian.org:
Bug#153257; Package tetex-bin. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>, tetex-bin@packages.qa.debian.org. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #25 received at 153257@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org>
To: "C.M. Connelly" <c@eskimo.com>
Cc: Richard Braakman <dark@xs4all.nl>, 153257@bugs.debian.org, debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 01:54:02 -0500
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 01:34:43AM -0700, C.M. Connelly wrote:
>    I have put these systems into the public domain so that people
>    everywhere can use the ideas freely if they wish.
[...]
>    As stated on the copyright pages of Volumes~B, D, and~E,
>    anybody can make use of my programs in whatever way they wish,
>    as long as they do not use the names \TeX, \MF, or Computer
>    Modern. In particular, any person or group who wants to produce
>    a program superior to mine is free to do so. However, nobody is
>    allowed to call a system \TeX\ or \MF\ unless that system
>    conforms 100\%\ to my own programs, as I have specified in the
>    manuals for the trip and trap tests. And nobody is allowed to
>    use the names of the Computer Modern fonts in Volume~E for any
>    fonts that do not produce identical {\tt.tfm} files. This
>    prohibition applies to all people or machines, whether
>    appointed by TUG or by any other organization. I do not intend
>    to delegate the responsibility for maintainance of \TeX, \MF,
>    or Computer Modern to anybody else, ever.

These statements are in tension.  If Professor Knuth asserts the latter,
he logically *cannot* be asserting the former.

Knuth is asserting his copyright to impose the restrictions described
above; therefore TeX, METAFONT, and Computer Modern are not in the
public domain.

Even, I'm afraid, if Professor Knuth says they are.

Someday, Professor Knuth should be contacted and asked to remove the
statement "I have put these systems into the public domain" because it
is clearly not true.

> I read this statement as saying that anyone can do anything they
> want with the code in the .web files, so long as they don't call
> the resulting systems/fonts TeX, METAFONT, or Computer Modern.
> 
> Unless, of course, the pseudo-TeX or pseudo-METAFONT systems pass
> the trip and trap tests, in which case they *can* be called TeX or
> METAFONT, respectively.
> 
> In other words, despite what it says in the individual files, I
> think that we don't have any problems distributing TeX.

I agree that the terms quoted above do not violate the DFSG.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson                |    A celibate clergy is an especially
Debian GNU/Linux                   |    good idea, because it tends to
branden@debian.org                 |    suppress any hereditary propensity
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |    toward fanaticism.    -- Carl Sagan
[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>, tetex-bin@packages.qa.debian.org:
Bug#153257; Package tetex-bin. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Frank Mittelbach <frank.mittelbach@latex-project.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>, tetex-bin@packages.qa.debian.org. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #30 received at 153257@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Frank Mittelbach <frank.mittelbach@latex-project.org>
To: Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org>
Cc: "C.M. Connelly" <c@eskimo.com>, Richard Braakman <dark@xs4all.nl>, 153257@bugs.debian.org, debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 12:01:09 +0200
Branden Robinson writes:
 > On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 01:34:43AM -0700, C.M. Connelly wrote:
 > >    I have put these systems into the public domain so that people
 > >    everywhere can use the ideas freely if they wish.
 > [...]
 > >    As stated on the copyright pages of Volumes~B, D, and~E,
 > >    anybody can make use of my programs in whatever way they wish,
 > >    as long as they do not use the names \TeX, \MF, or Computer
 > >    Modern. In particular, any person or group who wants to produce
 > >    a program superior to mine is free to do so. However, nobody is
 > >    allowed to call a system \TeX\ or \MF\ unless that system
 > >    conforms 100\%\ to my own programs, as I have specified in the
 > >    manuals for the trip and trap tests. And nobody is allowed to
 > >    use the names of the Computer Modern fonts in Volume~E for any
 > >    fonts that do not produce identical {\tt.tfm} files. This
 > >    prohibition applies to all people or machines, whether
 > >    appointed by TUG or by any other organization. I do not intend
 > >    to delegate the responsibility for maintainance of \TeX, \MF,
 > >    or Computer Modern to anybody else, ever.
 > 
 > These statements are in tension.  If Professor Knuth asserts the latter,
 > he logically *cannot* be asserting the former.
 > 
 > Knuth is asserting his copyright to impose the restrictions described
 > above; therefore TeX, METAFONT, and Computer Modern are not in the
 > public domain.

I agree.
My interpretation of history here is that Don (as many others, especially in
the past) used "in the public domain" not in its legal sense but as "freely
available to the public" followed by "restricted only by the small restriction
I impose for reason X".

Even here on the list I noted that several people (which I presume to  to be
debian-legal regulars) used "public domain" in different senses.

 > Someday, Professor Knuth should be contacted and asked to remove the
 > statement "I have put these systems into the public domain" because it
 > is clearly not true.

I think that would be a very good idea.


 > > I read this statement as saying that anyone can do anything they
 > > want with the code in the .web files, so long as they don't call
 > > the resulting systems/fonts TeX, METAFONT, or Computer Modern.
 > > 
 > > Unless, of course, the pseudo-TeX or pseudo-METAFONT systems pass
 > > the trip and trap tests, in which case they *can* be called TeX or
 > > METAFONT, respectively.
 > > 
 > > In other words, despite what it says in the individual files, I
 > > think that we don't have any problems distributing TeX.
 > 
 > I agree that the terms quoted above do not violate the DFSG.

well, the "individual files" Claire is referring to are files like cmr10.mf
which states

% THIS IS THE OFFICIAL COMPUTER MODERN SOURCE FILE cmr10.mf BY D E KNUTH.
% IT MUST NOT BE MODIFIED IN ANY WAY UNLESS THE FILE NAME IS CHANGED!

I too think that the TeX system doesn't violate the DSFG but it does come back
to accepting that it is not a violation of DSFG to require that individual
files of a work can only be distributed in changed form when their filenames
are changed.

frank



Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>, tetex-bin@packages.qa.debian.org:
Bug#153257; Package tetex-bin. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>, tetex-bin@packages.qa.debian.org. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #35 received at 153257@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org>
To: Frank Mittelbach <frank.mittelbach@latex-project.org>
Cc: "C.M. Connelly" <c@eskimo.com>, Richard Braakman <dark@xs4all.nl>, 153257@bugs.debian.org, debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 09:33:37 -0500
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 12:01:09PM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> Even here on the list I noted that several people (which I presume to  to be
> debian-legal regulars) used "public domain" in different senses.

There is only one sense.

>  > Someday, Professor Knuth should be contacted and asked to remove the
>  > statement "I have put these systems into the public domain" because it
>  > is clearly not true.
> 
> I think that would be a very good idea.
> 
> well, the "individual files" Claire is referring to are files like cmr10.mf
> which states
> 
> % THIS IS THE OFFICIAL COMPUTER MODERN SOURCE FILE cmr10.mf BY D E KNUTH.
> % IT MUST NOT BE MODIFIED IN ANY WAY UNLESS THE FILE NAME IS CHANGED!
> 
> I too think that the TeX system doesn't violate the DSFG but it does come back
> to accepting that it is not a violation of DSFG to require that individual
> files of a work can only be distributed in changed form when their filenames
> are changed.

Nice try, but the contention is that Knuth's licensing elsewhere
supersedes the terms expressed within the file itself.  Have you never
heard of dual-licensing?

If you disagree, or if this understanding is not clear and unambiguous
-- if the copyright license files that Knuth wrote cannot clearly be
interpreted to apply to each and every file in TeX, METAFONT, and
Computer Modern, respectively -- then the Computer Modern fonts are NOT
DFSG-free.

Is it your assertion that Knuth's license doesn't in fact apply to all
of TeX, METAFONT, and Computer Modern?  If so, to which files does it
apply, and what method are you using to make this determination?  If I
write a program and license it to you under the LPPL, but the program's
source code happens to have the phrase "All Rights Reserved" in it, does
that render your license null and void?  Can I then take you to court
for infringing my copyright if you distribute my program under the terms
of the LPPL that I extended to you?

I repeat: the file renaming requirement is not DFSG-free, and you
wanting it to be so will not make it so.  DFSG 4 does not permit it.

So, please, cut it out with the sophistry.  A file renaming requirement
is not DFSG-free and never will be unless the DFSG is amended to make it
thus.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson                |
Debian GNU/Linux                   |    Yeah, that's what Jesus would do.
branden@debian.org                 |    Jesus would bomb Afghanistan. Yeah.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>, tetex-bin@packages.qa.debian.org:
Bug#153257; Package tetex-bin. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Boris Veytsman <borisv@lk.net>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>, tetex-bin@packages.qa.debian.org. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #40 received at 153257@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Boris Veytsman <borisv@lk.net>
To: 153257@bugs.debian.org, debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 11:04:56 -0400
> Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 01:54:02 -0500
> From: Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org>

> 
> These statements are in tension.  If Professor Knuth asserts the latter,
> he logically *cannot* be asserting the former.
> 
> Knuth is asserting his copyright to impose the restrictions described
> above; therefore TeX, METAFONT, and Computer Modern are not in the
> public domain.
> 
> Even, I'm afraid, if Professor Knuth says they are.
> 



I cannot claim to understand *all* intricacies of Don's great brain,
but I always understood his intentions with respect to TeX and friends
in the following way:

1. As a true CS professor, Knuth distinguishes between the program
   (i.e. the code of the program) and the name of the program (file
   name of the code for systems with file naming conventions).

2. The code is in the public domain. Anybody can do anything with it.

3. The associated set of names is *not*. 

I share this inderstanding with the developers of derivatives of
Knuth's work like pdfTeX, EC fonts etc: they freely used fragments of
Don's code but changed the names. Since their work is endorsed by
Knuth (he sent a nice letter to Han The Thanh's thesis committee, for
example), it is probably an adequate understanding.

Whether these conditions are DGSG-free or not, is a subject of a
heated discussion on the debian-legal. My personal opinion is that
either they are or, if not, they should be grandfathered: TeX used to
be the greatest example of free software for decades, and it would be
a shame to lose this.

-- 
Good luck

-Boris

Clothes make the man.  Naked people have little or no influence on society.
- Mark Twain



Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>, tetex-bin@packages.qa.debian.org:
Bug#153257; Package tetex-bin. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Julian Gilbey <J.D.Gilbey@qmul.ac.uk>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>, tetex-bin@packages.qa.debian.org. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #45 received at 153257@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Julian Gilbey <J.D.Gilbey@qmul.ac.uk>
To: Frank Mittelbach <frank.mittelbach@latex-project.org>, "C.M. Connelly" <c@eskimo.com>, Richard Braakman <dark@xs4all.nl>, 153257@bugs.debian.org, debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#153257: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 09:53:20 -0600
On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 09:33:37AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I repeat: the file renaming requirement is not DFSG-free, and you
> wanting it to be so will not make it so.  DFSG 4 does not permit it.

  4. 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 to
     not restrict any files, source or binary, from being modified.)

Note the ***...*** section.

   Julian

-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

      Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London
              website: http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jdg/
   Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see: http://people.debian.org/~jdg/
     Visit http://www.thehungersite.com/ to help feed the hungry



Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>, tetex-bin@packages.qa.debian.org:
Bug#153257; Package tetex-bin. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Atsuhito Kohda <kohda@pm.tokushima-u.ac.jp>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>, tetex-bin@packages.qa.debian.org. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #50 received at 153257@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Atsuhito Kohda <kohda@pm.tokushima-u.ac.jp>
To: J.D.Gilbey@qmul.ac.uk, 153257@bugs.debian.org
Cc: frank.mittelbach@latex-project.org, c@eskimo.com, dark@xs4all.nl, debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#153257: TeX Licenses & teTeX
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 10:21:15 +0900 (JST)
Well, could we get any consensus on this issue?

Best regards,		            2002/8/23

-- 
 Debian Developer & Debian JP Developer - much more I18N of Debian
 Atsuhito Kohda <kohda@debian.org>
 Department of Math., Tokushima Univ.



Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#153257; Package tetex-bin. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Hilmar Preusse <hille42@web.de>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>. Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #55 received at 153257@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Hilmar Preusse <hille42@web.de>
To: Julian Gilbey <J.D.Gilbey@qmul.ac.uk>, 153257@bugs.debian.org
Cc: "C.M. Connelly" <c@eskimo.com>, Richard Braakman <dark@xs4all.nl>
Subject: Re: Bug#153257: TeX Licenses & teTeX
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 09:37:49 +0100
On 05.08.02 Julian Gilbey (J.D.Gilbey@qmul.ac.uk) wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 09:33:37AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:

Hi,

http://bugs.debian.org/153257

> > I repeat: the file renaming requirement is not DFSG-free, and you
> > wanting it to be so will not make it so.  DFSG 4 does not permit it.

[DFSG]

>   4. 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 to
>      not restrict any files, source or binary, from being modified.)
> 
> Note the ***...*** section.
> 
Hmm, the original submitter complained about the contradiction
between:

- you're allowed to change tex.web as long as you don't call the
  final program TeX
 and
- the statement in the header of tex.web itself, that one is not
  allowed to change the file at all.

As there is the technique to use the .ch files I don't know, if this
is relevant to us. Anybody mentioned, that there were some
discussions on debian-legal. Anybody has a clue, what were the
results of these discussions?

Further the submitter complained about:

  The individual parts of this distribution often have their own
  copyright. Please look into the respective files for their copyright.

which is similar to #218105. I guess, as soon as the first part is is
clarified we should close that bug here and open another one.

Regards,
  Hilmar 
-- 
sigmentation fault



Bug reassigned from package 'tetex-bin' to 'texlive-binaries'. Request was from Hilmar Preusse <hille42@web.de> to control@bugs.debian.org. (Sat, 26 Mar 2011 16:24:05 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Bug No longer marked as found in versions 1.0.7+20011202-7. Request was from Hilmar Preusse <hille42@web.de> to control@bugs.debian.org. (Sat, 26 Mar 2011 16:24:06 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Reply sent to Frank Kuester <frank@kuesterei.ch>:
You have taken responsibility. (Wed, 11 Jul 2012 19:54:09 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Notification sent to "Richard Braakman" <dark@xs4all.nl>:
Bug acknowledged by developer. (Wed, 11 Jul 2012 19:54:09 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #64 received at 153257-done@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Frank Kuester <frank@kuesterei.ch>
To: 153257-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#153257: TeX Licenses & teTeX
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 21:50:36 +0200
Hi everybody,

Hilmar Preusse <hille42@web.de> writes:

> - you're allowed to change tex.web as long as you don't call the
>   final program TeX
>  and
> - the statement in the header of tex.web itself, that one is not
>   allowed to change the file at all.
>
> As there is the technique to use the .ch files I don't know, if this
> is relevant to us. 

It is irrelevant in particular because the text in the file is much
older than the public letter from DEK. He just didn't change the file to
reflect his putting the code into public domain.

> Anybody mentioned, that there were some
> discussions on debian-legal. Anybody has a clue, what were the
> results of these discussions?

I don't want to search for links, but it is quite clear:  What DEK
intented is to protect the name, which is exactly what our exection in
the DFSG is for.  The code itself is public domain, even if the habit of
using change files has been kept after the letter (and maybe initially
as a result of a misunderstanding).

> Further the submitter complained about:
>
>   The individual parts of this distribution often have their own
>   copyright. Please look into the respective files for their copyright.
>
> which is similar to #218105. I guess, as soon as the first part is is
> clarified we should close that bug here and open another one.

Yes, this has been dealt with.  

Regards, Frank




Bug archived. Request was from Debbugs Internal Request <owner@bugs.debian.org> to internal_control@bugs.debian.org. (Thu, 09 Aug 2012 07:27:29 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.


Debian bug tracking system administrator <owner@bugs.debian.org>. Last modified: Wed Apr 16 16:01:24 2014; Machine Name: buxtehude.debian.org

Debian Bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.