[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Savannah-hackers] Re: [gnu.org #211627] Licensing LaTeX documents
From: |
Sylvain Beucler |
Subject: |
[Savannah-hackers] Re: [gnu.org #211627] Licensing LaTeX documents |
Date: |
Thu, 21 Oct 2004 01:12:13 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4.2.1i |
On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 07:07:17PM -0400, Dave Turner via RT wrote:
> > address@hidden - Tue Oct 19 20:01:05 2004]:
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 03:49:40PM -0400, Dave Turner via RT wrote:
> > > > address@hidden - Sat Oct 02 13:10:48 2004]:
> > > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > I would like to know what licensing terms you recommand for
> > > > documentation that uses external modules for the documentation system
> > > > (not the documentation itself), that are incompatible with the
> > > > licensing terms of the documentation.
> > > >
> > > > For example, I am reviewing a project that offers LaTeX classes under
> > > > the GNU GPL, and uses the 'prosper' module, that is released under the
> > > > LPPL 1.2 and not present in my tetex distribution (Red Hat Linux
> > > > 7.3's). Is it OK? Or does the project submitter needs to add a GPL
> > > > exception (maybe tacit) regarding
> > > >
> > > > Another example, I write a document released under the GFDL based on
> > > > other GFDL work, using the Texinfo documentation system. Does this
> > > > mean I can only use GFDL'd Texinfo macros not present in the Texinfo
> > > > standard package?
> > > >
> > > > What licensing terms would you recommend in such situations?
> > >
> > > Sorry for the delay in responding. I have been on vacation for the last
> > > few weeks.
> > >
> > > I don't know how to answer your question, because I don't know how the
> > > various pieces of these systems fit together.
> > >
> > > Can you give me some code examples to look at? Also, please describe
> > > the flow of data among the various components of these systems.
> >
> > The project I mentioned is available at:
> > http://www.inf.ufrgs.br/utug/download/iiufrgs-4.2.0.tar.bz2
> >
> > Let's take my two examples again:
> > > > For example, I am reviewing a project that offers LaTeX classes under
> > > > the GNU GPL, and uses the 'prosper' module, that is released under the
> > > > LPPL 1.2 and not present in my tetex distribution (Red Hat Linux
> > > > 7.3's). Is it OK? Or does the project submitter needs to add a GPL
> > > > exception (maybe tacit) regarding
> >
> > So, the document that will be hosted at Savannah is a set of LaTeX
> > classes; it is rather a functional work than a documentation.
> >
> > A document D written by a person P-A given, say, as public domain,
> > will use this classes C explicitely in the document header to
> > determine the page visual layout, and add new commands. C is using
> > another LaTeX class called 'prosper'.
> >
> > D (and C) will be processed by LaTeX. LaTeX is a documentation system,
> > but you can actually use it as a programming language.
> >
> > So, you in a way, run a "program" (D), relying on GPL "libraries" (C)
> > that themselves rely on LPPL "library" 'prosper'.
> >
> > It seems it is not legally possible to do so, and this is what the
> > project does.
> >
> > When you consider licensing documents, you usually check which
> > contents you used, not which tools you use to generate the
> > documents. This issue occured to me and I am rather clueless about
> > what to do with it.
> >
> > > > Another example, I write a document released under the GFDL based on
> > > > other GFDL work, using the Texinfo documentation system. Does this
> > > > mean I can only use GFDL'd Texinfo macros not present in the Texinfo
> > > > standard package?
> >
> > In this fictious example, I use a GFDL's document written in
> > Texinfo. I use a set of macros, which I would say can be compared to a
> > set a functions in a classical programming languages. Those macros are
> > not really documentation, so they are likely to be released under the
> > GNU GPL. Do it seems I cannot use them in my GFDL'd document, either.
> >
> >
> > So as I said you have 2 different licensing concerns - reuse of
> > documentation, and reuse of documentation tools.
> >
> > Considering both cases is likely to show up a lot of legal issue. I
> > would essentially like to know whether I do have to consider both.
>
> I think the solution in these cases is to fix the license of the macros
> to allow this. That's clearly what the licensors want.
So, in a nutshell, they need to use a combo: give LGPL-like permission
to link to their users + permission to link with prosper (internal
dependency).
> Are we the copyright holders of those Texinfo macros? If so, tell me
> what exact software is involved and I'll write to the licensing
> committee. Once we get some text, we can pass it on to the Latex people.
The Texinfo example is fictitious. Sorry for not using the right
English word.
--
Sylvain