Hi Manuel! On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 01:36:26 +0200, Manuel Pégourié-Gonnard <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>> particular point in time and being allowed to change it would violate the >>> right of people to express a viewpoint and have it been heard >> >> First problem is that nobody can distribute l3newsXX now because >> there's no license for it at all. If you want anybody to distribute >> l3newsXX you should at least give them permission to do this. > I think you take it the wrong way, the first question is: do the LaTeX team want > anybody to distribute l3newsNN.pdf? There is a problem with the current status > only if the answer is yes. And since l3news are not on CTAN, maybe it means the > team doesn't want it to be distributed except on the latex-project site. Sure, that's why I started with the question about it and then put "if you want..." in every paragraph. >> Second problem is that Debian folks treat any bits as software (and I >> agree with them) so license should be a free software license if you >> want Debian to distribute l3newsXX. (Note that this is just my >> understanding, not a statement by Debian.) > Actually, this is not Debian-specific. TeX Live also tends to distribute only > free content (be it software and documentation) and sometimes refuses to include > (or removes) documentation for which the source is not available. (Though TeX > Live's criterion for "free" are less drastic than Debian's: eg, TeX Live accepts > documents using non-free fonts Is it intentional or is it just overlooked? I vaguely remember something like this but I don't follow TeX Live closely enough lately. Do you have any links about it handy? (Probably it's better to take it off-list as it goes more off-topic for this list.) > while Debian insists that eveything must build > from source on a free system, and TeX Live accepts invariant sections and the > like in GFDL.) AFAIU TeX Live is closer to FSF than to Debian so non-modifiable opinions are probably ok to TeX Live. Just guessing. Alexander Cherepanov