TeXlive 2008 in Fedora 11?

[Martin Sourada]

On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 19:38 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 17:28 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> > On 2009-01-20 at 4:30:26 -0500, Stefan Grosse <singularitaet at gmx.net> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > are there any plans for updating texlive to 2008 in Leonidas?
> > 
> > I'd have to say the chances of this are extremely unlikely. I'm much
> > more inclined to propose that we drop texlive altogether. It is a
> > licensing nightmare, a tangled bundle of millions of files with little
> > apparent organizational structure, and no overarching licensing
> > analysis. I started trying to do a license audit on texlive 2008, but it
> > would probably take me at least a month of doing nothing except auditing
> > texlive to finish it.
> > 
> > To be fair, the existing texlive has the same problems, I just was
> > unaware of the scope of things until recently.
> > 
> 
> Right, who needs those oldfashioned TeX users anyway... ?!
> 

Er... you are not serious here, are you... There isn't any other
solution to type math formulae both fast and neat. I use TeX (csplain)
on daily basis... There's nothing oldfashioned about TeX, especially
around Physicists and Mathematicians.

But back to the main topic... TeTeX didn't have licensing issues? I'd
guess it had, seeing how cs fonts (which I use) seem to be licensed
under nonfree license (or so I understand what spot said somewhere in
this thread)... How other distributions (especially RHEL, SUSE and
Debian) handle these issues? I wouldn't want Fedora to be the only
distribution in the world without TeX just because its licensing is a
catastrophic mess...

Martin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20090129/1086e36b/attachment.sig>