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

[Dave Turner via RT]

> address@hidden - Wed Oct 20 19:23:08 2004]:
> 
> 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).

Really, they want something more like the Bison exception, I think.
 
> > 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.

My fauly.  Fictitious is the right word -- I just didn't understand what
part of your example was fictitious.

-- 
-Dave "Novalis" Turner
GPL Compliance Engineer
Free Software Foundation