F8 Features--should they stay or should they go?

Jindrich Novy jnovy at redhat.com
Thu Aug 30 08:52:43 UTC 2007

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 Novy <jnovy at redhat.com>   http://people.redhat.com/jnovy/

More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list