Here is my long-procrastinated remainder of my LPPL analysis.
My apologies to the LPPL team for my tardiness, and my gratitude for
their patience.
As before, I am classifying my remarks according to the following
scheme:
Categories
--
cosmetic nit: a typographical issue; failure to
Branden,
Whew! I apologize again for the stupidly long delay. Thank you again
for your boundless patience.
thank you (even though as you state later than we all hoped), your comments
look as valuable as the first set
frank
Branden Robinson wrote:
Argh, I gotta stop here (legalese fatigue, and yes, I know I do more
than my share of causing it in others). I will follow-up soon with my
comments on the remaining two major sections.
I hope you find the above analysis useful.
most likely from brief scanning ---
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 01:24:09AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
After the last round of discussions, the LaTeX Project has asked me to
review and present a new revision of the LPPL, which is attached below.
It is unlikely that I will be able to participate in the discussion this
time around
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
I would appreciate if others (I think remember Walter and Mark) had some
concerns with the last version would take a look too. It is my believe
that we resolved all issues that have been raised, but after a year of
work and perhaps 1500 emails in
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
It is my opinion, on first read-through, that this version would
satisfy the DFSG. I hope others will agree.
Branden Robinson writes:
At first glance this looks really good, and probably satisfies the
DFSG.
I would appreciate if others (I think remember
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
It is my opinion, on first read-through, that this version would
satisfy the DFSG. I hope others will agree.
Branden Robinson writes:
At first glance this looks really good, and probably satisfies the
DFSG.
After the last round of discussions, the LaTeX Project has asked me to
review and present a new revision of the LPPL, which is attached below.
It is unlikely that I will be able to participate in the discussion this
time around due to time constraints, but the LaTeX people should be
around to
Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
After the last round of discussions, the LaTeX Project has asked me to
review and present a new revision of the LPPL, which is attached below.
It is unlikely that I will be able to participate in the discussion this
time around due to time constraints,
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 01:24:09AM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
After the last round of discussions, the LaTeX Project has asked me to
review and present a new revision of the LPPL, which is attached below.
It is unlikely that I will be able to participate in the discussion this
time around
10 matches
Mail list logo
