[Savannah-hackers] Re: [gnu.org #211627] Licensing LaTeX documents

[Sylvain Beucler via RT]

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