On 2009-01-29 at 18:12:56 -0500, Stefan Grosse <singularitaet@xxxxxxx> wrote: > "To the best of our knowledge, all the software in TeX Live meets the > requirements of the Free Software Foundation's definition of free > software, and the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Where the two > conflict, we generally follow the FSF." > > So maybe you dont want to rely on such a statement. But that makes > quite an effort. Especially given that we've found 10+ non-free files inside of it. > Some of the mentioned packages also where in tetex which was part in > fedora before and no one complained about license issues. Tetex was never license audited, because we inherited it from Red Hat Linux, and when I got to it, we were in the process of moving to texlive. I did a cursory audit of the original texlive import and we caught some things, but I was nowhere near as thorough when I did that original audit. I've learned a LOT since then. :) > On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:46:06 -0500 "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" > wrote: > TC> texmf/dvipdfmx/* > > dvipdfmx at least is GPL see readme: > http://www.ctan.org/tex-archive/dviware/dvipdfmx/ Okay, so the trick is that I need to match up those files in texlive with the ones from CTAN. I can't assume random files in a directory with the same name as something sanely licensed are the same. This is a big reason why you should always always always always always put licensing attribution in each file included in tarball. Always always always. > It would be really sad removing texlive for those license oddities. It > would be quite some competitive disadvantage. Yes, but at the same time, we know that the texlive in Fedora now has license issues. I've only scratched the surface of auditing texlive 2008. I'd rather be able to finish the audit and bring texlive 2008 into Fedora, but there are only so many hours in the day. ~spot -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
