borisv at lk.net
Thu Nov 27 17:22:09 CET 2014
JW> Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 09:20:06 +0000
JW> From: Joseph Wright <joseph.wright at morningstar2.co.uk>
JW> This has come up before and the position seems to be clear. If a package
JW> produces output that can *only* be used with a commercial/closed source
JW> piece of software then it doesn't go in TL even if the package itself is
JW> open source. That's true for code that relies absolutely on Adobe Reader
JW> to view the results but also in the case of for example support for
JW> commercial fonts.
I would like to repeat my objection to this policy. I think it is
misguided and actually impedes the development of free software.
I suggest the following change: a package belongs to TL if, besides
being a free software, it EITHER produces an output useful for a free
system OR produces an output conforming to published and free
standards, which can be implemented in free software.
Right now certain features of PDF are implemented in Adobe Acrobat
only. However, these features are open, so authors of free viewers
can implement them at any time. I think that by making software
producing output that uses these features we actually encourage the
authors of free viewers to implement them.
This is different with commercial fonts which are, well, commercial.
Adobe advanced PDF features are free in the sense that you or I can
create a viewer that uses them. So why discriminate against them?
One good reason why computers can do more work than people is that they
never have to stop and answer the phone.
More information about the tex-live