Re: license violation in tetex-texmf-3.0 fixed
Petr Olsak
On Thu, 25 May 2006, Thomas Esser wrote:
> Petr Olsak has notified me today, that tetex-texmf-3.0.tar.gz contains
> three files which have been modified in a way that violates his license.
> The modification had been done by me (as I wrongly assumed that the
> license was GPL; in fact the license was "GPL with some additional
> restrictions").
>
> So, I just have updated these three files (reverted to the original
> version) and replaced the "broken" tetex-texmf-3.0.tar.gz by the fixed
> tetex-texmf-3.0po.tar.gz
Thank you very much.
> This update just fixes the copyright violation. I cannot recommend to
> download this "update". The version of cstex / cslatex contained in
> teTeX-3.0 (both tetex-texmf-3.0.tar.gz and tetex-texmf-3.0po.tar.gz)
> is severely broken (e.g. pdfcslatex produces dvi by default).
Thomas Esser had five possibilities how to react to the reported licence
problem.
1. do nothing: that would mean that the licence violation would not be
corrected.
2. to remove the whole tetex-texmf-3.0.tar.gz from CTAN: that would mean
that the license violation would be corrected but teTeX 3.0 would not be
usable never more.
3. to remove the relevant files (csplain.ini etc.) from the
tetex-texmf-3.0.tar.gz archive: that would mean that the license violation
would be corrected but csplain/cslatex stuff would no longer be usable in
teTeX 3.0.
4. to replace the relevant files by old version (Feb. 2000): that would
mean that the license violation would be corrected but
pdfcsplain/pdfcslatex would not work properly.
5. to replace relevant files by newer version (Feb 2005): that would mean
that the license violation would be corrected and all cstex stuff would
work properly in teTeX 3.0 environment.
We have had to send five emails to Thomas until he decided to do
something else than 1. He decided on 4. Of course, we would be more
happy if he decided to do 5 (it would be no extra work for him!), but
given our current relationship, that would be too much to expect.
> There is no current maintainer, since teTeX is declared dead (at least
> at the moment until someone picks it up).
This "dead teTeX" lives happily in many Linux distributions as the current
and latest TeX software. Unfortunately, throught this "dead teTeX", a
patch that violates csplain author's copyright got into hundreds of Linux
(and other Unix) distributions. This was the main reason why I asked for
the problem to be corrected.
> Since I am not really maintaining teTeX any more,
> I am not going to fix your bug in teTeX.
This is not _my bug_ in teTeX, this bug is a consequence of our bad
communication (i.e. communnication between T.E. and P.O.). I will try to
show here what I mean by a better communication:
* T.E. (March 2004): Petr, we plan to use only one TeX engine (pdfetex)
for all formats. What should we do in CSTeX?
* P.O. (March 2004): discussion about the best macrocode to fix this on
cstex@ list.
* P.O. (April 2004): Thomas, I am sending you a new version of CSTeX files
which solves the problem of shared TeX engine for different formats.
Of course, the main teTeX developer is not obliged to inform his
co-workers about his plans. Here is what really happened:
* Bug report from a user to P.O. (Feb. 2005): pdfcsplain does not work
in new teTeX distribution.
* P.O. (Feb. 2005): Oh my, there is shared TeX engine (pdfetex) for
different formats. I didn't know about it. Discussion about the
best macrocode to fix this on cstex@ list.
* P.O. to T.E.: (March 3 2005): Thomas, I am sending a new version of
CSTeX files which solves the problem of shared TeX engine for different
formats.
What went on at this point? I believe that the ideal communication betwen
co-workers would follow like this:
* T.E. to P.O. (Mar. 2005): thanks for new wersion, but I released
teTeX tree tetex-texmf-3.0.tar.gz one month ago. There is old
version of CSTeX here. I don't plan to do any changes in file
tetex-texmf-3.0.tar.gz and this file will be for many months the
official source of TeX software for hudreds of Linux distributions.
* P.O. to T.E. (Mar. 2005): please, upgrade CSTeX files not only in the
development tree but also in tetex-texmf-3.0.tar.gz. The old version
of CSTeX does not work in the environment with shared TeX engine
(problems with pdfcsplain/pdfcslatex).
* T.E. to P.O. (Mar. 2005): done, tetex-texmf-3.0a.tar.gz is released.
* P.O. to T.E. (Mar. 2005): Thank you.
Unfortunately, this communication has never happened. What happened was
this: P.O. was never informed that the source for Linux distributions was
not upgraded with CSTeX files from March 3 2005. The end users of CSTeX
from Linux distributions are out of luck, because due to communication
problems between P.O. and T.E. the software they need does not work.
Best Regards
Petr Olsak
Matej Kosik
Petr Olsak wrote:
>
> Thomas Esser had five possibilities how to react to the reported licence
> problem.
>
> 1. do nothing: that would mean that the licence violation would not be
> corrected.
>
> 2. to remove the whole tetex-texmf-3.0.tar.gz from CTAN: that would mean
> that the license violation would be corrected but teTeX 3.0 would not be
> usable never more.
>
> 3. to remove the relevant files (csplain.ini etc.) from the
> tetex-texmf-3.0.tar.gz archive: that would mean that the license violation
> would be corrected but csplain/cslatex stuff would no longer be usable in
> teTeX 3.0.
>
> 4. to replace the relevant files by old version (Feb. 2000): that would
> mean that the license violation would be corrected but
> pdfcsplain/pdfcslatex would not work properly.
>
> 5. to replace relevant files by newer version (Feb 2005): that would mean
> that the license violation would be corrected and all cstex stuff would
> work properly in teTeX 3.0 environment.
Mozno by stalo za uvahu zvazit taky pohlad na softver:
1. Mame tu ludi, ktory sa rozumeju danej veci (cstex) a vytvorili nieco, co je relativne pouzitelne pre rozne distribucie TeX-u a rozne operacne systemy
2. Mame (bohuzial alebo nastastie ako sa to vezme) vela operacnych systemov, z ktorych niektore ponukaju pomerne sofistikovane balickovacie mechanizmy. Niektori ludia vedia cosi o tom, ako sa tieto balickovacie systemy funguju a pre decentny softver
3. Mame tu pouzivatelov, ktory sice mozu byt odbornikmi na rozne oblasti ale nemusi to byt zrovna implementovanie a konfiguracia TeX-u alebo instalacia roznych podivnych softverov a nasledne hakovanie este podivnejsich konfigurakov alebo ked toho sch
apt-get install latex-beamer
a su schopni ju pouzivat.
Ak nemame balicky, tak to vacsinou dopada tak, ze ludia vygooglia nejaky HOWTO (ako sadzat Japoncinu, napriklad) a ten s vacsim alebo mensim uspechom interpretuju bez toho, ze by presne vedeli, co robia. Toto je miesanie kompetencii a mrhanie casu be
- definuje vztahy (zavisi-na, poskytuje, koliduje-s, nahradzuje) svojho balicku s inymi balickami) (Priklad: http://altair.dcs.elf.stuba.sk/~kosik/debian/squeak-debian-packages.pdf)
- definuje akcie potrebne vykonad pred/po instalacii jeho balicka a pred/po odstraneni jeho balicka
Ak balicky mame ale su priliz monstrozne (to je pripad tetex-{bin,base,extra} veci), tak to dopada tak, ze jeho udrzba nie je skalovatelna.
Domnievam sa, ze cstex (a mnozstvo inych veci) nema byt sucastou mojich tetex-{bin,base,extra} balickov ale mali by byt udrzovane/distribuovane samostatne. Je sice pravda, ze je treba celkovo vyvinut (trochu) vacsie usilie (balickovanie je overhead n
--
Matej Kosik
Matej Kosik
Domnievam sa, ze cstex (a nielen on) nema byt sucastou mojich tetex-{bin,base,extra} balickov ale mali by byt udrzovane/distribuovane samostatne. Je sice pravda, ze je treba celkovo vyvinut (trochu) vacsie usilie (balickovanie je overhead navyse), al
--
Matej Kosik
Zdenek Wagner
> Matej Kosik wrote: (nejaky softver ukusol zvysok posledneho odstavca, zvlastne). Mal vyzerat takto:
>
> Domnievam sa, ze cstex (a nielen on) nema byt sucastou mojich tetex-{bin,base,extra} balickov ale mali by byt udrzovane/distribuovane samostatne. Je sice pravda, ze je treba celkovo vyvinut (trochu) vacsie usilie (balickovanie je overhead navyse),
> --
Problem je v tom, ze tech operacnich systemu a balickovacich programu je
mnoho. V linuxech se pouziva .deb a .rpm, ve Windows CAB, v OS/2 .wpi,
Software Install, stary instalacni program od IBM. MikTeX ma svuj
balickovaci system. Pritom balickovaci system musi pri pridavani noveho
balicku najit radu informaci o jiz nainstalovanych programech. Pokud tedy
nemam v OS/2 instalovany TeX WarpInem, pak je mi cstex.wpi k nicemu. Tezko
lze predpokladat, ze Petr Olsak bude fyzicky schopen navyrabet CSTeX v
podobe balicku pro vsechny operacni systemy (temer jiste spoustu systemu
ani nema), takze nezbyva jina moznost nez se spolehnout na to, ze tvurci
distributoru to nejakym zpusobem zaradi. Kdyby se z mamuti distribuce
teTeX vyhodil CSTeX, dopadlo by to tak, ze by jen cast uzivatelu nasla
pouzitelny balicek, spise by vsichni (pokud by se o CSTeXu dozvedeli)
nasli cstex.tar.gz a podle navodu by se s tim museli poprat. To vidim
spise jako krok zpet.
> Matej Kosik
>
Zdenek Wagner
e-mail: wag...@cesnet.cz
see also http://hroch486.icpf.cas.cz/wagner/
http://icebearsoft.euweb.cz