Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: texlive-texmf - Architecture independent parts of the TeX formatting system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=229180 ------- Additional Comments From rf10@xxxxxxxxx 2007-09-18 07:17 EST ------- (In reply to comment #47) > > * The 2 files (fancybox.sty and pcatcode.sty) under Artistic v1. Spot: Does > > texlive really have to be blocked for this one? Considering these are both > > already in the existing tetex packages, keeping texlive on hold won't > > actually fix the problem. Plus, there are still other packages with > > Artistic v1 files in them too. > > Yes, there are other packages with Artistic v1 licensing, but we're working on > getting them relicensed. We're not letting new packages come in with the old > Artistic license. fair enough, imo. > Specifically, upstream has removed fancybox.sty really? i've just sorted out the confusion created by an earlier re-licensing of fancybox as lppl, and the situation (on ctan) is now completely clear -- only one copy, lppl, catalogued as lppl. > and relicensed pcatcode.sty. I definitely not: that's an ams package. i've approached the ams about it, and they say there's an upcoming release that will have a revised (free) licence statement. the release is scheduled for 2007-10-01; if it arrives (fingers firmly crossed) it will be on ctan by 2007-10-02 (uk time), and probably in the tex-live repository later that day (california time ;-). pcatcode is actually part of the amsrefs bundle, and pro tem i've marked that bundle as artistic v1 licensed, in the catalogue. i hadn't noticed that single file in the bundle that wasn't licensed lppl (i suspect the ams hadn't either). > think that the texlive folks have handled all of the licensing > concerns I found in the audit, good -- even though i think you're slightly confused about it all... > it would be for the best if we could ask them to do a fresh > tarball release, then rebase on that. i had assumed that redhat was working from the repository. tex-live's not supplied me (as ctan mirror of tug.org) with a texmf-tarball for years -- i currently get a disc image and tarballs of sources. if all else fails, i could build a tarball from my copy of the repository, and upload it to redhat, but it seems an awful kerfuffle. preparing a new disc image (including building all the sources for all supported platforms) takes more than a month, i think. i wouldn't recommend waiting for that (next scheduled delivery, ~= 2008-01-15). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review