On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 13:23 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Patrice Dumas wrote:
>
> >
> > Those licensing issues would be blockers in general, but in that case
> > some problematic softwares are in tetex already, it is an already existing
> > issue, so I think it is not unacceptable to have problematic parts goes
> > in, given that most of the time the issue is that a license is missing,
> > and the author intention is certainly to make free software.
>
> If we are distributing software without a clear written license, we
> should stop doing so. If you did do it without the knowledge that there
> is a problem, then that is different from knowingly ignoring a licensing
> issue and you can suffer more damages as a result. It is a blocker.
>
> > I mailed all the issues I found out to the texlive maintainer and Spot
> > is also doing a license review.
One of the problems is the licence of dvips with the requirement to sent
modifications back to author. Dvips is really important part of the
whole TeX system and if we don't ship it we might even remove half of
the other texlive binaries because they don't make sense without being
able to produce printable output.
--
Tomas Mraz
No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back.
Turkish proverb
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
