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

[Dave Turner via RT]

> 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.  

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.


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