[Fedora TeX Live] Unavoidable question: texlive for F-17? :-)

[Michael J Gruber]

Tom Callaway venit, vidit, dixit 14.11.2011 16:39:
> On 11/14/2011 03:17 AM, Michael J Gruber wrote:
>> Yet that leaves many wondering what in texlive-2011 is less legal than
>> texlive-2007 is, which is being carried forward to current releases no
>> matter what. If legality is a matter of the packaging rather than the
>> packaged content then why don't we package texlive-2011 like
>> texlive-2007 - but really, what notion of legality would that be:
>> Monolithic is legal when split packaging is not?
> 
> No, honestly, the reality is that TexLive 2007 was not properly audited,
> and shouldn't have gone into Fedora in the first place, but since it did
> (and since lots and lots of stuff would break if it was removed), we've
> temporarily permitted it to stay until a newer TexLive can be audited,
> and any non-free items removed.

Thanks for the clarification. Would you mind me putting this on the FP
TL feature wiki?

> The split packaging model has notable advantages, but legality isn't one
> of them. That said, it will permit us to more easily take the next
> steps, which are:
> 
> * Make a table containing each component from TexLive 2011
> * Next to each component, indicate the license that TexLive has marked
> for the component
> 
> Then, we need to do the audit, which roughly consists of:
> * Confirming that the TexLive license tagging is correct (they're
> usually right, but they have a bad habit of writing things like
> "distributable" or "public domain" on components which either have a
> weird license or no license at all.
> * Mark any items which are non-free and not acceptable for Fedora.
> * Check on the legal status of "Public Domain" components, as many of
> them are not truly in the Public Domain, or were improperly placed into
> the Public Domain by individuals who due to their jurisdiction, cannot
> legally abandon copyright. These items either need to be licensed or
> disabled from Fedora (we can't even legally distribute them).
> * Attempt to identify the license of components which have no clear
> license, or simply disable them.
> 
> Disabled items then need to be removed from the source tarball, and
> their matching subpackage components disabled. Any dependent components
> of these disabled subpackage components would also need to have their
> subpackages disabled (but the source could remain in the tarball).

Hmm. Maybe split between Fedora proper and rpmfusion or the current TL
repo? That could help getting something usable into Fedora sooner and
moving pieces over to Fedora as they are cleared or replaced by pieces
with a clear license.

> If someone wants to start making the table, that would be helpful. If
> not, I'll get to it when I have some spare time.

I know that you know that we have
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Talk:Features/TeXLiveLegalAudit

So, do we need another round for TL 2011, or do we need something
parseable ("proper table")?

Michael