Bug#433137: marked as forwarded (texlive-fonts-recommended: No license information for utopia and fpl)
Your message dated Fri, 20 Jul 2007 17:17:36 +0200
with message-id <firstname.lastname@example.org>
has caused the Debian Bug report #433137,
regarding texlive-fonts-recommended: No license information for utopia and fpl
to be marked as having been forwarded to the upstream software
author(s) TeXLive <email@example.com>.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--- Begin Message ---
Dear tex-live team,
Ralf Stubner <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I haven't cheked all parts of tl-fonts-recommended,
Who has ...?
> but at least for
> utopia and fpl there is no license information like the README files
> that can be found on CTAN.
I'm not sure whether there's a formal policy, but I think that's an
upstream bug. Not only because the license is in there, but generally
because README files sometimes are really meant for what their name
Not having looked at the new infrastructure, I don't know whether this
needs to be fixed by hand, and how. Does anyone know?
> For fpl one might argue that
> % fpl: gpl (verification data:1.002:1.002:2006-05-04:frank:README)
> [list of files]
> in Licenses.gz is sufficient (I am not sure, though).
For debian-legal, I claim that this is sufficient, but adding the README
would be nice (and luckily the "extra license file" lintian error isn't
triggered by READMEs ;-)).
> But for
> utopia one will need the actual license text, since it is nonstandard.
Ralf, could you find the time and add that to the text of individual
licenses in all/debian/copyright, once that I've committed my changes
and the existing license texts are at their place?
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
--- End Message ---