Re: Please test new tetex packages for woody

[Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de>]

On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:

>...
> > > I am not sure but it might be better to include 
> > > doc/latex/koma-script/README, doc/latex/seminar/sem-read.me
> > > as, for example, copyright.koma-script, copyright.seminar
> > > because there are contradicting statements in other files.
> > 
> > In which files did you find the contradicting statements?
> 
> For example doc/latex/koma-script/readme.txt says
> 
> You are NOT ALLOWED to take money for the distribution or use of
> either this file or a changed version, except for a nominal charge for
> copying etc.
> 
> and seminar.sty itself says
> 
> %% You are NOT ALLOWED to take money for the distribution or use of
> %% these files or modified versions or fragments thereof, except for
> %% a nominal charge for copying etc.
> 
> Theses are corrected by doc/latex/koma-script/README and 
> doc/latex/seminar/sem-read.me
> 
> Of course you can add some comments to README.Debian or so
> if you think it more appropriate.
>...

I have added the following section in the copyright file (please correct
any mistakes):

seminar and koma-script have changed their licence recently but there
are still files that refer to the old copyright. Both are copyrighted
under the LPPL (LaTeX Project Public License) now. You can find the LPPL
in /usr/share/doc/tetex-base/lppl.txt.gz

 
>...
> I think Adrian's work is great and I would like to hear
> the idear or opinion from others.

Thanks, :-) but I haven't heard the opinion of anyone else than you. :-(

I put new packages at http://www.fs.tum.de/~bunk/tetex.html and if noone
complains within the next 48 hours, I'll ask my sponsor to upload them.

> We should be more active! shouldn't we?
> 
> Best Regards,			2000.6.26

cu,
Adrian

-- 
A "No" uttered from deepest conviction is better and greater than a
"Yes" merely uttered to please, or what is worse, to avoid trouble.
                -- Mahatma Ghandi