On Mon, 2003-10-20 at 20:36, Jens Lehmann wrote:
We are not in agreement yet.
OK, I'm waiting for your decisions.
Are there any news on the license issue?
I guess Ross is still asking / waiting for people to agree to the GPL
proposal. To speed things up a bit, I've got some additional points
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
On Wed, 2003-10-15 at 10:57, Torsten Bronger wrote:
It being at least _possible_ to charge $200 is exactly what Debian
requires from Free Software. Besides the GPL, please consider the
LPPL or any other free license approved at
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/.
The LPPL isn't OSI
Hello Roland,
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Roland Stigge wrote:
Hi,
regarding the license issue, who's the current official maintainer of
latex2html and/or responsible for licensing issues?
I found different names:
Nikos Drakos (author mentioned in LICENSE)
Nikos has had nothing to do with the
