To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=54505
User rene changed the following:
What |Old value |New value
================================================================================
Status|VERIFIED |REOPENED
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution|FIXED |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Feb 10 05:11:40 -0800
2006 -------
quick look at the ooo202dicts02 stuff:
de_DE fixed. yes.
cs_CZ contains no license info whatsoever except LGPL in makefile.mk... What
are these patterns based on?
same with da_DK, en_GB, en_US and ru_RU.
it_IT only says LGPL without fullfilling the LPPL.
hu_HU looks ok (Didn't look at hunhyph itself, though)
nl_NL also says that it is based on the TeX patterns but not on which or
doesn't ship the original file and therfore also violates the LPPL.
Two possibilities: Use other issues for the other ones and change the title of
this one to cover de_DE only or reopen this one. I decide for the latter one
since IMHO we should *not* ship LPPL-violating material.
Maybe someone should point the LaTeX people to this issue...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from
Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments.
http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
