Hello. TexLive included non-free or unclear license. Packages and File list: #Creative commons license, contain "non-commercial" restriction. (E,g cc-by-nc, cc-by-nc-sa, cc-by-nc-nd, etc...) Package name: uowthesistitlepage, uowthesistitlepage-doc File Path: doc/latex/uowthesistitlepage/uowthesistitlepage_doc.tex tex/latex/uowthesistitlepage/uowthesistitlepage.sty Package name: computational-complexity-doc File Path: doc/latex/computational-complexity/cc-cls-inline.tex Package name: context-doc File Path: texmf-dist/doc/context/sources/general/manuals/xtables/* texmf-dist/doc/context/sources/general/manuals/swiglib/* texmf-dist/doc/context/sources/general/manuals/tools/* Details: texmf-dist/doc/context/sources/general/manuals/readme/mreadme.tex This bug already reported (Debian). https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=823143 Package name: sympytexpackage-doc File Path: All content. Details: doc/latex/sympytexpackage/README This bug already reported (Debian). https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=824068 #license is commercial use restriction. Package name: beebe File path: bibtex/bst/beebe/astron.bst bibtex/bst/beebe/jtb.bst Package name: ltxindex File path: source/latex/ltxindex/ltxindex.dtx Package name: arabtex and arabtex-doc File path: All contents. Details: doc/latex/arabtex/arabtex.faq #license is questionable, unclear. Package name: adjmulticol File Path: source/latex/adjmulticol/adjmulticol.dtx tex/latex/adjmulticol/adjmulticol.sty Reason: This license is LPPL, but commercial use is require license fee. Package name: tools File Path: source/latex/tools/multicol.dtx tex/latex/tools/multicol.sty Reason: This license is LPPL, but commercial use is require license fee. Package name: suftesi File Path: source/latex/suftesi/suftesi.dtx Reason: Creative commons license (contain non-commercial restriction) statement is find. Package name: toptesi File path: source/latex/toptesi/toptesi.dtx Reason: Creative commons license (contain non-commercial restriction) statement is find. Package name: philosophersimprint File Path: source/latex/philosophersimprint/philosophersimprint.dtx Reason: Creative commons license (contain non-commercial restriction) statement is find. CC-BY-NC, CC-BY-NC-SA, CC-BY-NC-ND ,commercial restriction license, and unclear license is non-free. I suggest that resolve license problem. Thanks.
Additional reference (arabtex) https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=288885
All responses refer to audit on texlive 2016. (In reply to mejiko from comment #0) > #Creative commons license, contain "non-commercial" restriction. (E,g > cc-by-nc, cc-by-nc-sa, cc-by-nc-nd, etc...) > > > Package name: uowthesistitlepage, uowthesistitlepage-doc Both of these packages are dual licensed CC-BY-NC-SA or LPPL. We choose LPPL. > Package name: computational-complexity-doc License is LPPL (see README). > Package name: context-doc > > File Path: > > texmf-dist/doc/context/sources/general/manuals/xtables/* > texmf-dist/doc/context/sources/general/manuals/swiglib/* > texmf-dist/doc/context/sources/general/manuals/tools/* > > Details: texmf-dist/doc/context/sources/general/manuals/readme/mreadme.tex License is CC-BY-SA. > Package name: sympytexpackage-doc Docs under CC-BY-NC-SA were removed in upstream texlive 2016. > Package name: beebe > > File path: > > bibtex/bst/beebe/astron.bst > bibtex/bst/beebe/jtb.bst Files are non-free. They will be removed in Fedora's texlive 2016 update by using a cleaned beebe tarball. > Package name: ltxindex > > File path: > > source/latex/ltxindex/ltxindex.dtx File is GPLv2+. > Package name: arabtex and arabtex-doc > > File path: > > All contents. > > Details: doc/latex/arabtex/arabtex.faq FAQ is outdated. License is LPPL: ftp://ftp.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de/pub/arabtex/readme.txt > Package name: adjmulticol > > File Path: > > source/latex/adjmulticol/adjmulticol.dtx > tex/latex/adjmulticol/adjmulticol.sty > > Reason: This license is LPPL, but commercial use is require license fee. > > Package name: tools > > File Path: > > source/latex/tools/multicol.dtx > tex/latex/tools/multicol.sty > > Reason: This license is LPPL, but commercial use is require license fee. Need to discuss this license with Red Hat Legal before moving forward on these two. > Package name: suftesi > > File Path: > > source/latex/suftesi/suftesi.dtx > > Reason: Creative commons license (contain non-commercial restriction) > statement is find. This is a bit confusing, but suftesi is LPPL, and defaults to marking generating works as being under the CC-BY-NC-ND license. Because suftesi is LPPL, it is possible to alter it to generate works under any license terms, and this "default" is not binding, as there is no CC-BY-NC-ND content in suftesi to inherit into works. > Package name: toptesi > > File path: > > source/latex/toptesi/toptesi.dtx > > Reason: Creative commons license (contain non-commercial restriction) > statement is find. License is LPPL. > Package name: philosophersimprint > > File Path: > > source/latex/philosophersimprint/philosophersimprint.dtx > > Reason: Creative commons license (contain non-commercial restriction) > statement is find. Same situation as toptesi, but this one is a little better commented: % By default all papers in the journal are licensed under % under a Creative Commons % Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License. You can % override this setting by using \cmd{\copyrightlicense}\marg{Other % license}. Code in philosophersimprint is LPPL. User can choose license on works it generates.
(In reply to Tom "spot" Callaway from comment #2) > > Package name: adjmulticol > > > > File Path: > > > > source/latex/adjmulticol/adjmulticol.dtx > > tex/latex/adjmulticol/adjmulticol.sty > > > > Reason: This license is LPPL, but commercial use is require license fee. > > > > Package name: tools > > > > File Path: > > > > source/latex/tools/multicol.dtx > > tex/latex/tools/multicol.sty > > > > Reason: This license is LPPL, but commercial use is require license fee. > > Need to discuss this license with Red Hat Legal before moving forward on > these two. The "multicol" license clause which describes a "moral" application of perceived commercial value (including scenarios in which no value is perceived by the downstream consumer) is on shaky interpretive ground as is, however, that point is rendered irrelevant by the wording which describes the clause as something that the consumer is "asked" to do, making it optional, rather than mandatory ("must" do). Accordingly, we treat the entire clause as optional, and choose not to honor it, nor require any downstream consumers from Fedora to honor it. Basically, we no-op all of that nonsense away, because we can, and we're left with just LPPL. Sometimes, the fact that licenses are obviously not written by lawyers makes these situations simpler (though, that is rare, and not usually what the author intends). I've removed the non-free files from beebe in rawhide, which resolves all the issues in this bug report.