--- On Fri, 3/30/12, Rex Dieter <rdieter@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: Rex Dieter <rdieter@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: in case you did not know about kerTeX distribution > To: users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Date: Friday, March 30, 2012, 8:56 PM > Antonio Olivares wrote: > > > ``The packaging and patents are issues that hold > TeXLive in Fedora back'' > > Imo, this is a mischaracterization. Read for > yourself: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Talk:Features/TeXLiveLegalAudit#Why_and_how_to_do_a_legal_audit.3F > > -- rex > > -- That is good and I know that Fedora goes and checks everything, but the process takes too long, it is 2012 and since 2009 they have been trying to sort out the mess and have not:(. I apologize if I sound pessimist, but this is one reason why some folks just pop in the Texlive DVD and use that instead of the texlive which is available in Fedora :( I know that texlive* is a monster(BIG) and there are too many questions about legalities, and blah blah blah. Why could it not be in RPM fusion not free and people decide on their own to use it or not? There is a minimal package, i.e, one that is an a package called texlive-tetex, it with a fairly amount of review could be included and a big statement with a disclaimer. ***We cannot include the other packages that are included in official texlive because they do not meet the standards and or policies in place to be distributed by Fedora *** If you need to use these packages, please get them from another source. All of this may be preferred instead of just staying with TeXlive 2007 for a good while now :( If the things were so hard, how come not look at texlive 2007 and all the packages, just adapt the same packages and include texlive 2011 or the new texlive 2012 which is being worked on? ``Why and how to do a legal audit? Only packages licensed under a free license can successfully pass through review process, i.e. to be included into Fedora. If the licensing is clear, one needs to move the package including headline and title from any of sections to either Fedora approved or Fedora disapproved sections. Please state clearly which license is appropriate to a package if moved to Fedora approved, e.g. adobemapping - BSD. '' KerTeX is not the one being reviewed or is it? If it was to be included in Fedora, I'd say it should meet or exceed the requirements. It is based on the original work of the authors when it was public domain. There should be no problems. But again, who would review it and if so, and someone finds something that is wrong, will contacting the author suffice? And it should not take years to sort the mess out. My $0.02. Regards, Antonio -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
