[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: texlive-basic_2005-1_i386.changes REJECTED

Joerg Jaspert <joerg@debian.org> wrote:

> On 10488 March 1977, Frank Küster wrote:
>>>>>allrunes       dfsg
>>>>>Please: Tell me its not true that the DFSG is used as a license there.
>>>> As stated in the License file, this list was generated from the TeX
>>>> Catalogue, which *can be wrong*! If you check the actual allrunes files,
>>>> you see that it is LPPL.
>>> I really hope you've done this --- for all files --- before uploading.
>>> Also, there are several versions of the LPPL, at least one of which
>>> might have DFSG issues.
>> Note that teTeX is worse in this respect (#218105), and that having two
>> (groups of) maintainers work on this will speed up resolving that bug,
>> while rejecting texlive because it's copyright file is still not ideal
>> will not.
> Just because something else is worse than this isnt a reason to allow
> another bad thing. That argumentation doesnt work.

So far for the first part of my sentence.  The second part means:  With
texlive in Debian, the chances to resolve #218105 for etch get

Regards, Frank
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer

Reply to: