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(a)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.