khaledhosny at eglug.org
Thu Nov 27 20:08:21 CET 2014
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 11:22:09AM -0500, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> 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.
AFIK, not every feature implemented by Adobe's reader is part of the ISO
PDF standard, so this is not a blank statement.
More information about the tex-live