On Thursday 16 October 2003 2:12 am, Ross Moore wrote:
OK; I've contacted Nikos and he is not averse to small changes in the
license statement, provided that he gets to see them first, of course.
I'd like to keep any such to be minimal, and without changing the
intention of keeping the
Roland Stigge wrote:
At Debian, there are quite some latex2html bugs open [1], many of them
upstream related, i.e. maybe interesting for the current primary
latex2html maintainer.
latex2html in Debian is almost useless for standalone documents, because
of #183372. If the maintainer would care
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Roland Stigge wrote:
Hi Ross,
thanks for your detailed mail.
You're welcome.
Thanks for pointing out clause D. But consider the following.
Imagine the extreme (yet possible) case of a distribution including just
packages all of which have a license like
Hi Ross,
On Thu, 2003-10-16 at 18:43, Ross Moore wrote:
If someone has just copied other people's software, and has not even
provided installation routines, nor *anything at all* that adds value
to the collection more than the sum of the free pieces, then he/she
has no moral right to charge
tag 183372 pending
thanks
Hi Ross and Jens,
the Debian bug #183372 is obviously resolved by latex2html 2002-2-1 (you
possibly don't need to investigate further). I built a package which
should be uploaded to the Debian archive (sid) as soon as the licensing
issue (#204684) is resolved. You can
