Frank Küster wrote:
Sorting this out and contacting all upstream authors would take a hell
lot of time. Asking them to upload a new version to CTAN instead of
sending us a mail, because such a mail would be problematic wrt to DFSG
clause 8, would take even more time. So much time that we will
[I am not subscribed to debian-tetex-maint.]
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 02:38:20PM +0200, Hilmar Preusse wrote:
On 11.07.04 Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Hmmm. I don't suppose it's a *huge* deal, but do you think we
could ask upstream to apply the new LPPL to the existing
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 02:38:20PM +0200, Hilmar Preusse wrote:
On 11.07.04 Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Hmmm. I don't suppose it's a *huge* deal, but do you think we
could ask upstream to apply the new LPPL to the existing codebase?
On 11.07.04 Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 11:04:51AM +0200, Hilmar Preusse wrote:
Hi $\forall$,
Thomas has delivered out 2.0.2 with 1.2 and I'm not sure if it
makes sense to put just in 1.3 and hope that every package
declares a dep on 1.2 or
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 11:04:51AM +0200, Hilmar Preusse wrote:
Thomas has delivered out 2.0.2 with 1.2 and I'm not sure if it makes
sense to put just in 1.3 and hope that every package declares a dep
on 1.2 or later(!).
[...]
Exactly. Thomas continues releasing beta releases for the upcoming
Hi,
thank you Branden for your comparison and all the work you folks put
into this issue!
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oddly, the version of the LPPL shipped in tetex-base[8] is still version
1.2, and a review of the tetex package changelog shows no new upstream
release since
On 07.07.04 Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Hi guys,
Oddly, the version of the LPPL shipped in tetex-base[8] is still
version 1.2,
Thomas has delivered out 2.0.2 with 1.2 and I'm not sure if it makes
sense to put just in 1.3 and hope that every package declares a dep
on 1.2 or
Hi guys,
Last year I posted an analysis in two parts[1][2] of the then-draft version
of the LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL). In December, Frank Küster
asked what the status of the LPPL was[3], and I told him I didn't know[4].
Well, that same month, the LaTeX Project folks finalized the
8 matches
Mail list logo
