[Bug 229180] Review Request: texlive-texmf - Architecture independent parts of the TeX formatting system

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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 at cam.ac.uk  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.