Bug 1368082

Additional reference (arabtex) 

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=288885

All responses refer to audit on texlive 2016.

(In reply to mejiko from comment #0)

> #Creative commons license, contain "non-commercial" restriction. (E,g
> cc-by-nc, cc-by-nc-sa, cc-by-nc-nd, etc...)
> 
> 
> Package name: uowthesistitlepage, uowthesistitlepage-doc

Both of these packages are dual licensed CC-BY-NC-SA or LPPL. We choose LPPL.

> Package name: computational-complexity-doc

License is LPPL (see README). 

> Package name: context-doc
> 
> File Path:
> 
> texmf-dist/doc/context/sources/general/manuals/xtables/*
> texmf-dist/doc/context/sources/general/manuals/swiglib/*
> texmf-dist/doc/context/sources/general/manuals/tools/*
> 
> Details: texmf-dist/doc/context/sources/general/manuals/readme/mreadme.tex

License is CC-BY-SA. 

> Package name: sympytexpackage-doc

Docs under CC-BY-NC-SA were removed in upstream texlive 2016. 

> Package name: beebe
> 
> File path:
> 
> bibtex/bst/beebe/astron.bst
> bibtex/bst/beebe/jtb.bst

Files are non-free. They will be removed in Fedora's texlive 2016 update by using a cleaned beebe tarball.

> Package name: ltxindex
> 
> File path:
> 
> source/latex/ltxindex/ltxindex.dtx

File is GPLv2+.

> Package name: arabtex and arabtex-doc
> 
> File path:
> 
> All contents.
> 
> Details: doc/latex/arabtex/arabtex.faq 

FAQ is outdated. License is LPPL:
ftp://ftp.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de/pub/arabtex/readme.txt


> Package name: adjmulticol
> 
> File Path:
> 
> source/latex/adjmulticol/adjmulticol.dtx
> tex/latex/adjmulticol/adjmulticol.sty
> 
> Reason: This license is LPPL, but commercial use is require license fee.
>
> Package name: tools
> 
> File Path:
> 
> source/latex/tools/multicol.dtx
> tex/latex/tools/multicol.sty
> 
> Reason: This license is LPPL, but commercial use is require license fee.

Need to discuss this license with Red Hat Legal before moving forward on these two.

> Package name: suftesi
> 
> File Path:
> 
> source/latex/suftesi/suftesi.dtx
> 
> Reason: Creative commons license (contain non-commercial restriction)
> statement is find. 

This is a bit confusing, but suftesi is LPPL, and defaults to marking generating works as being under the CC-BY-NC-ND license. Because suftesi is LPPL, it is possible to alter it to generate works under any license terms, and this "default" is not binding, as there is no CC-BY-NC-ND content in suftesi to inherit into works.

> Package name: toptesi
> 
> File path:
> 
> source/latex/toptesi/toptesi.dtx
> 
> Reason: Creative commons license (contain non-commercial restriction)
> statement is find. 

License is LPPL.

> Package name: philosophersimprint
> 
> File Path:
> 
> source/latex/philosophersimprint/philosophersimprint.dtx
> 
> Reason: Creative commons license (contain non-commercial restriction)
> statement is find. 

Same situation as toptesi, but this one is a little better commented:

% By default all papers in the journal are licensed under
%  under a Creative Commons
%  Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.  You can
%  override this setting by using \cmd{\copyrightlicense}\marg{Other
%  license}.

Code in philosophersimprint is LPPL. User can choose license on works it generates.

(In reply to Tom "spot" Callaway from comment #2)

> > Package name: adjmulticol
> > 
> > File Path:
> > 
> > source/latex/adjmulticol/adjmulticol.dtx
> > tex/latex/adjmulticol/adjmulticol.sty
> > 
> > Reason: This license is LPPL, but commercial use is require license fee.
> >
> > Package name: tools
> > 
> > File Path:
> > 
> > source/latex/tools/multicol.dtx
> > tex/latex/tools/multicol.sty
> > 
> > Reason: This license is LPPL, but commercial use is require license fee.
> 
> Need to discuss this license with Red Hat Legal before moving forward on
> these two.

The "multicol" license clause which describes a "moral" application of perceived commercial value (including scenarios in which no value is perceived by the downstream consumer) is on shaky interpretive ground as is, however, that point is rendered irrelevant by the wording which describes the clause as something that the consumer is "asked" to do, making it optional, rather than mandatory ("must" do). Accordingly, we treat the entire clause as optional, and choose not to honor it, nor require any downstream consumers from Fedora to honor it.

Basically, we no-op all of that nonsense away, because we can, and we're left with just LPPL. Sometimes, the fact that licenses are obviously not written by lawyers makes these situations simpler (though, that is rare, and not usually what the author intends).

I've removed the non-free files from beebe in rawhide, which resolves all the issues in this bug report.