Re: texlive-basic_2005-1_i386.changes REJECTED
Joerg Jaspert <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 10488 March 1977, Frank Küster wrote:
>>>>>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
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich