Jindrich Novy wrote:
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?
I am not sure what you mean by that. The legal quality of the software
cannot be ignored ever. The review of any software has this a mandatory
step. That is working as expected and we have already considered it and
found out problems and those problems are public information now. We are
past feature freeze now regardless of the licensing issues. How do you
suggest we progress from here?
Rahul
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
