Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!
Bug 302148 - texlive ebuilds should not have non-free licenses
Summary: texlive ebuilds should not have non-free licenses
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Gentoo Linux
Classification: Unclassified
Component: New packages (show other bugs)
Hardware: All Linux
: High normal (vote)
Assignee: TeX project
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2010-01-25 08:59 UTC by William Throwe
Modified: 2010-07-29 10:47 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Package list:
Runtime testing required: ---


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description William Throwe 2010-01-25 08:59:34 UTC
Many texlive packages require license exceptions when using ACCEPT_LICENSE="-* @FREE" because they use the freedist license.  The TeX Live website states, however, that all software in TeX Live meets the FSF criteria for free software.  http://www.tug.org/texlive/copying.html

Unless the packages have been modified to include non-free components, it should be possible to install them without adding license exceptions.

Reproducible: Always
Comment 1 Alexis Ballier gentoo-dev 2010-01-25 14:13:41 UTC
i've mapped licenses that were freedist to as-is which is more accurate for texlive 2009 -> fixed
Comment 2 Luke-Jr 2010-07-29 01:54:31 UTC
What about the "TeX" license? This one is *very* non-free (doesn't even allow modification or redistribution at all). On the bright side, grep doesn't find it in the sources for texlive-core...
Comment 3 William Throwe 2010-07-29 02:30:05 UTC
(In reply to comment #2)
> What about the "TeX" license? This one is *very* non-free (doesn't even allow
> modification or redistribution at all). On the bright side, grep doesn't find
> it in the sources for texlive-core...
> 

I don't see anything forbidding redistribution.  With respect to the modification restrictions, the FSF discussion of the LPPL 1.2 at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#LPPL-1.2 might be the basis of the MISC-FREE classification.

Of course, it's still pretty annoying.  If the license doesn't actually apply it would be nice to have it removed.
Comment 4 Luke-Jr 2010-07-29 02:56:14 UTC
Distribution is forbidden by default under Copyright Law in most jurisdictions. The "TeX" license does not *authorize* distribution, so it follows that it is not allowed.

LPPL is a completely different license, and does not to my knowledge actually forbid modifications. LPPL 1.2 only insisted on the file being renamed, whereas "TeX" forbids modifications altogether (while also specifying the terms under which the author *might* grant permission, but not therein).
Comment 5 Ulrich Müller gentoo-dev 2010-07-29 10:47:02 UTC
(In reply to comment #4)
> Distribution is forbidden by default under Copyright Law in most
> jurisdictions. The "TeX" license does not *authorize* distribution, so it
> follows that it is not allowed.

The "license" that we have as licenses/TeX doesn't occur anywhere in texlive packages (no hits for "xzgrep -i 'are.*master.*files' texlive*.xz").

However, files like tex.web and mf.web carry a copyright/license notice similar to the following:

% This program is copyright (C) 1982 by D. E. Knuth; all rights are reserved.
% Copying of this file is authorized only if (1) you are D. E. Knuth, or if
% (2) you make absolutely no changes to your copy. (The WEB system provides
% for alterations via an auxiliary file; the master file should stay intact.)

% TeX is a trademark of the American Mathematical Society.
% METAFONT is a trademark of Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

% Although considerable effort has been expended to make the TeX program
% correct and reliable, no warranty is implied; the author disclaims any
% obligation or liability for damages, including but not limited to
% special, indirect, or consequential damages arising out of or in
% connection with the use or performance of this software. This work has
% been a ``labor of love'' and the author hopes that users enjoy it.

I suggest that licenses/TeX should be replaced by above text.