Hi Christoph, On 9/28/22 10:15, Christoph Erhardt wrote:
Anyone?
Sorry, I was on vacation.
My preferred answer would be 'your question is stupid; *of course* man-pages- posix is redistributable'. So if that is indeed the case, please don't hesitate to say so. ;-)
I'd like to, but I can't. I'm not sure if it's true, but the fact is that it's not obvious.
Thanks, Christoph On Monday, 29 August 2022 08:14:22 CEST Christoph Erhardt wrote:Hi list, I have a question regarding the redistribution of man-pages-posix. Prior to the 2017-a release, the POSIX_COPYRIGHT file contained the following paragraph:Redistribution of this material is permitted so long as this notice and the corresponding notices within each POSIX manual page are retained on any distribution, and the nroff source is included. Modifications to the text are permitted so long as any conflicts with the standard are clearly marked as such in the text.In the 2017-a release, that paragraph has disappeared. I would like to clarify the implications of that for downstream distributions. The Fedora project, which is known to be very strict about licensing concerns, sees the new licence as impermissible and has dropped the POSIX man pages as a consequence: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2116859 Now, Fedora's quasi-official way of dealing with such licensing issues would be to add the item in question to RPM Fusion's 'nonfree' package repository. I have opened an inclusion request: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6396 However, the discussion there has raised the question whether the contents of man-pages-posix are redistributable *at all* - given that the clause mentioning redistribution has vanished from the licence. Could someone please clarify?
The person who could clarify this certainly is Michael Kerrisk. I'm not sure if he will have the time to read this, though.
I'm sorry I have no idea. POSIX is too closed for my taste. I tried contacting them a long time ago regarding this, and I received no answer, and their website is a labyrinth to me.
I encourage you to try to contact them with this problem, and ask that they clarify it, and if possible, that they publish the source code (hopefully the roff(7), not HTML) with whatever license they wish, so that I can pick it easily. I'm worried that if they don't do, I won't be able to provide manual pages for the next revision of POSIX, if they don't.
Thanks a lot, Christoph
Thank you, Alex -- <http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
