On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 22:31:38 +0100 Sam Geeraerts <[email protected]> wrote:
> Richard Stallman schreef: > > I am sure there is a real problem with the Debian packages that > > make this necessary. But just eliminating those packages is not > > much of a fix. TeX is needed for formatting GNU documentation. It > > is vital for gNewSense to include a usable copy of TeX. So if the > > Debian packages can't be used, we need other packages to replace > > them. > > > > Are people working on supplying valid TeX packages? > > (Moving discussion to our development list.) > The issue is that ams-latex was released under a non-free license, > but that was not intentional. We've been in contact with AMS (the > copyright holders of ams-latex) about a license change. They agreed > to adopt the LaTeX Project Public License for future version. We > asked if older versions could be retroactively dual-licensed somehow, > but didn't get a response to that (yet). IIRC it was "We'll relicence RSN, we'll let you know when its done". Thats the basis we released gns 2.3 [1] on 5 (?) months ago. AFAIK we've not heard back and our metad branch hasn't had it re-included. [1] for 2.3 we included a note saying 'ams said they would give us a new licence soon, we'll update the package when we get it'. kk -- Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS) Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer http://www.kgoetz.id.au No, I won't join your social networking group
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ gNewSense-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnewsense-dev
