[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  2007-09-16 05:17 EST -------
(In reply to comment #45)
> Well, spot has apparently cleared the multicol license upon rereading, see:
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2007-August/msg00017.html

great.

> This leaves:
> * Literat license - what's up with that one? Should the affected files just be 
> removed?

i would recommend not bothering with it.  it's a small russian foundry
(sfaict) and there seems to have been a long history to getting them onto
the archive, so we just installed them when they arrived recently.

i doubt they'll make the next release of tex-live, with that licence, so
as well for redhat to ignore them.

> * AFPL font files: already removed upstream as per:
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2007-August/msg00030.html
> (they're just old versions of the GPLed GhostScript fonts) but need to be 
> removed downstream (in the Fedora package) too if there isn't yet any new 
> release tarball from upstream without these.

ah.  i wonder if there's something i need to do on the archive...

> * 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.

there is a copy of fancybox on ctan that has been relicensed under lppl
  www.tex.ac.uk/tex-archive/macros/latex/contrib/seminar/inputs/fancybox.sty
but there are two under artistic v1 as well (presumably) as .doc files.

i'll get those sorted out.  (the author is incommunicado, but he's told
seb rahtz to "deal with his stuff" as necessary, i think.)  the present
situation is ludicrous, so something needs to be done.

pcatcode is weird: everything else published by the ams is under lppl, so
it's not clear to me what happened there.  i've had recent mail from barb
beeton, so she's active in some sense -- will mail her to ask what's going
on.  (we can't just change pcatcode, since we mirror it from the ams.)

(nb, texlive _does_ still need work, even if the licensing is sorted:
witness my first two posts to this thread.)


-- 
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.