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

[Rahul Sundaram]

Jindrich Novy wrote:
> 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?

I am not sure what you mean by that. The legal quality of the software 
cannot be ignored ever. The review of any software has this a mandatory 
step. That is working as expected and we have already considered it and 
found out problems and those problems are public information now. We are 
past feature freeze now regardless of the licensing issues. How do you 
suggest we progress from here?

Rahul