On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 19:38 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote: > On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 17:28 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > > On 2009-01-20 at 4:30:26 -0500, Stefan Grosse <singularitaet@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > are there any plans for updating texlive to 2008 in Leonidas? > > > > I'd have to say the chances of this are extremely unlikely. I'm much > > more inclined to propose that we drop texlive altogether. It is a > > licensing nightmare, a tangled bundle of millions of files with little > > apparent organizational structure, and no overarching licensing > > analysis. I started trying to do a license audit on texlive 2008, but it > > would probably take me at least a month of doing nothing except auditing > > texlive to finish it. > > > > To be fair, the existing texlive has the same problems, I just was > > unaware of the scope of things until recently. > > > > Right, who needs those oldfashioned TeX users anyway... ?! > Er... you are not serious here, are you... There isn't any other solution to type math formulae both fast and neat. I use TeX (csplain) on daily basis... There's nothing oldfashioned about TeX, especially around Physicists and Mathematicians. But back to the main topic... TeTeX didn't have licensing issues? I'd guess it had, seeing how cs fonts (which I use) seem to be licensed under nonfree license (or so I understand what spot said somewhere in this thread)... How other distributions (especially RHEL, SUSE and Debian) handle these issues? I wouldn't want Fedora to be the only distribution in the world without TeX just because its licensing is a catastrophic mess... Martin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
