P.Taylor at Rhul.Ac.Uk
Thu Nov 27 17:39:14 CET 2014
Boris Veytsman wrote:
> 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?
Hear hear. Very strongly seconded.
More information about the tex-live