retitle 434951 python2.4-doc: code copied from latex2html included
clone 434951 -1
# the same file is in python2.5-doc
reassign -1 python2.5-doc
retitle -1 python2.5-doc: code copied from latex2html included
thanks
Carl Fürstenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote (a year ago):
> Package: python2.4-doc
> Severity: serious
> Justification: Policy 2.2.2
>
> the file 'Doc/html/style.css' in python2.4-doc is partially created by
> LATEX2HTML, and as
> I have learned, that is a violation of the DFSG. Correct me if I'm
> wrong.
Hm, no, I don't think so. There are two issues here:
1. If it is a created file, do we have the source? Is a non-free program
required to process the source?
2. If the file contains code from latex2html, is this code copyright by
the latex2html copyright holders, and what is its license?
So let's have a closer look. The file says in its first lines:
/*
* The first part of this is the standard CSS generated by LaTeX2HTML,
* with the "empty" declarations removed.
*/
and it is unclear to me where "the first part" ends. Looking at the
stuff that follows, I have doubts that this is copyrightable at all. I
don't know much about css writing, but things like
,----
| /* Century Schoolbook font is very similar to Computer Modern Math: cmmi */
| .math { font-family: "Century Schoolbook", serif; }
| .math i { font-family: "Century Schoolbook", serif;
| font-weight: bold }
| .boldmath { font-family: "Century Schoolbook", serif;
| font-weight: bold }
|
| /*
| * Implement both fixed-size and relative sizes.
| *
| * I think these can be safely removed, as it doesn't appear that
| * LaTeX2HTML ever generates these, even though these are carried
| * over from the LaTeX2HTML stylesheet.
| */
| small.xtiny { font-size : xx-small; }
| small.tiny { font-size : x-small; }
`----
don't look like they are more than lists of style elements which have
not been invented by latex2html, in an order which is also used by
latex2html (but order carries no information here AFAIK), and a "I like
the fonts of latex2html" statement. Except for the comments of course,
they are copyrightable, but obviously *not* taken from latex2html.
So to me it seems clear that the file is not *created* by latex2html,
but instead it contains lines of assignments copied from
latex2html. This is why I think the first question can safely be
answered "We do have the source, we don't need a non-free program".
Furthermore, I think that the assignments are not copyrightable at
all. I also don't think that latex2html's design is individual or
original enough to be able to say that it is a work of art with
associated intellectual rights.
Taking this together, I do think that there is no bug, and both bugs
should be closed. Since I am neither maintainer nor submitter, and have
so little knowledge about css, however, I leave the actual decision to
close this bug to someone else.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
