> Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > To make the dialign-t package, I removed the documentation from the > > upstream tarball, that I use for a dialign-t-doc package, in the > > non-free section as the their LaTeX sources are not provided. > > > > Now, I was informed that the reason is that the sources have been lost. > > > > In that case, don't the .html, .pdf and .ps files become the "preferred > > form for modification"? Le Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 08:08:48PM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit : > My opinion is yes, as explained in the copyright file for openafs-doc, and > ftp-master apparently agreed sufficiently to let the package into the > archive. (Although they weren't released under the GPL -- the specific > license may make a difference, and I haven't checked what license > dialign-t is under.)
Le Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 10:35:16PM -0800, Don Armstrong a écrit : > Unless the pdf is exceptionally complicated, it's not all that > difficult to resurect LaTeX that does a similar job; it'd probably be > ideal to do this and distribute the pdf files built from that, unless > the underlying codebase never changes and you won't ever need to fix a > bug in the documentation. Thanks for your answers (and thank for the private answer I got as well). I will prepare an update of dialign-t using unmodified sources and ask for the removal of dialign-t-doc from non-free. Actually, the documentation has been almost completely rewritten in DocBook format for making the manpage of dialign-t for Debian, but I am reluctant to replace the original html and pdf files: it is just like adding my name into a work I have not done. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy http://charles.plessy.org Wakō, Saitama, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
