On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 22:59:45 +0200
Benedikt Ahrens benedikt.ahr...@gmx.net wrote:
Karl Goetz wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:16:31 +0200
Sam Geeraerts sam...@elmundolibre.be wrote:
I would like to ask the AMS for an updated license for the CURRENT
version, as they offered in their
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:16:31 +0200
Sam Geeraerts sam...@elmundolibre.be wrote:
Sam Geeraerts schreef:
Karl Goetz schreef:
I have changed the status of the bug[1]. Its now NEEDSINFO,
BLOCKER, target release deltah (2.3).
I'll adjust the status when we get word back from the FSF as to
Karl Goetz wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:16:31 +0200
Sam Geeraerts sam...@elmundolibre.be wrote:
Sam Geeraerts schreef:
Karl Goetz schreef:
I have changed the status of the bug[1]. Its now NEEDSINFO,
BLOCKER, target release deltah (2.3).
I'll adjust the status when we get word back from
Benedikt Ahrens schreef:
I see.
Then I think we can leave it where it is. I still think we should
include an updated licence file for it though; and a reference back to
this discussion. Thoughts on that?
kk
You might want to reply to the AMS. They promised to deliver an updated
license text,
Sam Geeraerts schreef:
Karl Goetz schreef:
I have changed the status of the bug[1]. Its now NEEDSINFO, BLOCKER,
target release deltah (2.3).
I'll adjust the status when we get word back from the FSF as to their
opinion.
Sam/Benedikt, have either of you emailed the FSF yet?
I assume nobody
On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 23:00:24 +0200
Sam Geeraerts sam...@elmundolibre.be wrote:
Karl Goetz schreef:
I have changed the status of the bug[1]. Its now NEEDSINFO, BLOCKER,
target release deltah (2.3).
I'll adjust the status when we get word back from the FSF as to
their opinion.
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 21:37:21 +0200
Sam Geeraerts sam...@elmundolibre.be wrote:
Benedikt Ahrens schreef:
Hello,
I finally received an answer to my request to the AMS. Their
licensing will be unified.
The new wording has already been applied to the following
distributions:
1)
Karl Goetz schreef:
I have changed the status of the bug[1]. Its now NEEDSINFO, BLOCKER,
target release deltah (2.3).
I'll adjust the status when we get word back from the FSF as to their
opinion.
Sam/Benedikt, have either of you emailed the FSF yet?
I assume nobody has up until now, so I've
Hello,
I finally received an answer to my request to the AMS. Their licensing will be
unified. I think that the issue is a bit similar to the Mozilla story: it is
more a question of trademark than of copyright. Modified versions may not carry
the same file name (which is also used as package
Benedikt Ahrens schreef:
Hello,
I finally received an answer to my request to the AMS. Their licensing will be
unified. I think that the issue is a bit similar to the Mozilla story: it is
more a question of trademark than of copyright. Modified versions may not carry
the same file name
Karl Goetz schreef:
Its also possible a number of the Debian packages are built against
ams because its available - they might be re-introduce-able by
rebuilding them.
It's weird that they don't know about these dependencies. Packages
Not sure what you mean here.
I mean: the Debian devs say
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 21:01:55 +0200
Sam Geeraerts sam...@elmundolibre.be wrote:
Karl Goetz schreef:
Its also possible a number of the Debian packages are built
against ams because its available - they might be
re-introduce-able by rebuilding them.
It's weird that they don't know about
Karl Goetz schreef:
Worst case scenario is that nothing has changed, so we'd have to
remove the whole thing. It seems this would not only hurt TeX users
badly, but might also break other stuff:
we do not know whether any of these files is used for
building Debian packages
We broke X badly,
-dev] Another tex package (texlive-base) to hack
HI all,
Would one of the tex users like to hack on texlive-base?
gNS bug report: http://bugs.gnewsense.org/Bugs/00248
Upstream bug:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=477060
I suspect its much the same level effort
Karl Goetz schreef:
HI all,
Would one of the tex users like to hack on texlive-base?
gNS bug report: http://bugs.gnewsense.org/Bugs/00248
Upstream bug: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=477060
I suspect its much the same level effort as the texlive-generic-extra
package.
I
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:51:04 +0200
Sam Geeraerts sam...@elmundolibre.be wrote:
Karl Goetz schreef:
HI all,
Would one of the tex users like to hack on texlive-base?
gNS bug report: http://bugs.gnewsense.org/Bugs/00248
Upstream bug:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I haven't had any answer from the AMS yet. Later today I'll contact the
Debian maintainer for some news.
ben
Karl Goetz wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:51:04 +0200
Sam Geeraerts sam...@elmundolibre.be wrote:
Karl Goetz schreef:
HI all,
Would
17 matches
Mail list logo
