On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 01:23:20PM +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. Yes, I completely agree with that. But from a legal quality point of view for the upcoming F8, isn't it better to include partly audited package such as TeXLive, as a replacement of teTeX, where the legal quality of the software it ships was not even considered? Jindrich -- Jindrich Novy <jnovy@xxxxxxxxxx> http://people.redhat.com/jnovy/ -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
