Project

General

Profile

Freedom Issue #2699

Freedom Issue #972: TeXLive freedom verification

Re-evaluate [texlive-latexextra]

theova - about 3 years ago - . Updated 12 months ago.

Status:
confirmed
Priority:
discussion
Assignee:
oaken-source
% Done:

70%

Description

   # remove nonfree packages
   # no specific free license
   rm -v {authoraftertitle,clock,fnpara}.tar.xz
   # nonfree license (CC BY-NC)
   rm -v axessibility.tar.xz

...

   # remove nonfree packages references from package list
   sed -ri '/^(axessibility|authoraftertitle|fnpara) /d' CONTENTS
Looking at the removed packages, I found the following:
  • The non-free package "axessibility" was removed from texlive, see [1]
  • The package "authoraftertile" is "realeased to the public domain" [2]
    which qualifies it as beeing a free package.
  • The package "clock" is apparently free and has not to be removed [3]
  • The package "fnpara" has a copyright AND is included under the LaTeX Project
    Public License v1.3 or later

So all of them are free. I suggest to distribute them. As a consequence, Parabola's PKGBUILD would not have significant changes compared to Arch's PKGBUILD.
I suggest to un-blacklist [texlive-latexextra].

[1] https://tug.org/pipermail/tex-live/2019-June/043727.html
[2] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#PublicDomain
[3] http://mirror.kumi.systems/ctan/macros/latex/contrib/clock/COPYING

Files

authoraftertitle_license.txt (11.6 KB) authoraftertitle_license.txt nona, 2020-07-20 02:54 PM

History

#1

Updated by theova about 3 years ago

  • Parent task set to #972
#2

Updated by theova about 3 years ago

  • Subject changed from Re-evaluate [texlive-latexextra to Re-evaluate [texlive-latexextra]
#3

Updated by oaken-source about 3 years ago

  • Assignee set to oaken-source
  • Status changed from unconfirmed to confirmed

I checked all four of the packages named above and your assessment seems to be correct.

I have checked the pkgbuild, and there is one more trivial batch script removed from the package, but that does not constitute a freedom issue.

I'll wait for a second opinion on this, but I think we can unblacklist this as well.

#4

Updated by oaken-source about 3 years ago

I retract my statement. the issue here is the declaration of code into the public domain, which, depending on the circumstances, may be void:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Talk:Features/TeXLiveLegalAudit#Public_Domain

#5

Updated by bill-auger almost 3 years ago

so this ticket can be closed?

#6

Updated by theova almost 3 years ago

I would really like to contribute to resolve this issue.
As for now, only the license of the package "authoraftertile" needs to be resolved, right?

How can I do this? E.g.
- ask fsf whether it qualifies as free
- ... ?
if it is definetly not free:
- Ask author to change license
- Ask TeX Live maintainer to remove this package

#7

Updated by nona almost 3 years ago

My 2 cents: send the e-mail from the link above (Resolving public domain confusion)

I just did to Matthias Bilger (matthias [lives at] bilger dot info)

#8

Updated by nona almost 3 years ago

I am attaching the answer by Matthias Bilger, and the package has been updated on CTAN to have the CC0 license.

What remains to be done is to contact upstream so that they remove axessibility from the source files. Who can do this? (i'm thinking of you theova or bill :D ).

#9

Updated by theova almost 3 years ago

  • % Done changed from 0 to 70

nona wrote:

I am attaching the answer by Matthias Bilger, and the package has been updated on CTAN to have the CC0 license.

Great news! Thanks for the email.

What remains to be done is to contact upstream so that they remove axessibility from the source files. Who can do this? (i'm thinking of you theova or bill :D ).

axessibility was already removed from TeXLive. See:
https://tug.org/pipermail/tex-live/2019-June/043727.html
https://tug.org/pipermail/tex-live/2019-June/043728.html

So, AFAIK there are no more freedom issues with texlive-latexextra and it can be unblacklisted.

#10

Updated by nona almost 3 years ago

  • Priority changed from freedom issue to discussion

theova wrote:

So, AFAIK there are no more freedom issues with texlive-latexextra and it can be unblacklisted.

In fact, it is now the package itself which needs to be updated (the tar--or zip that is brought from Arch Linux by the PKGBUILD, and the tar that is on the Parabola GNU/Linux repos). The changes need to be reflected there (how do we achieve that?).

#11

Updated by theova about 1 year ago

Looking again at this issue, I see no obstacle for removing this package from the blacklist.

What is the state? Can somebody remove it from the blacklist?

#12

Updated by gap 12 months ago

To clarify, which versions are affected with freedom issues and which version is the earliest free version?

As others have pointed out, if there are no more freedom issues then it should be removed from the blacklist.
Are we sure the newer versions don't have any new freedom issues?

Also available in: Atom PDF