wl at gnu.org
Thu Nov 27 18:21:43 CET 2014
> >> This has come up before and the position seems to be clear. If a
> >> package produces output that can *only* be used with a
> >> commercial/closed source piece of software then it doesn't go in
> >> TL even if the package itself is open source. That's true for
> >> code that relies absolutely on Adobe Reader to view the results
> >> but also in the case of for example support for commercial fonts.
> 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.
To be more precise: PDF became an ISO standard. In case the
`interactiveplot' bundle relies on extensions specific to Adobe
Reader, it should be rejected. If it relies on the ISO standard only,
it should be part of TeXLive.
More information about the tex-live