Re: texlive-basic_2005-1_i386.changes REJECTED

[Hilmar Preusse <hille42@web.de>]

On 29.11.05 Anthony DeRobertis (anthony@derobert.net) wrote:
> Norbert Preining wrote:

Hi,

> >>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.
> 
If you allow me to drop a note: The license, which was used to
release teTeX 2.0 in sarge, is still the old one, which was said to
be problematic...

H.
-- 
Whatever doesn't succeed in two months and a half in California will
never succeed.
		-- Rev. Henry Durant, founder of the University of California
  http://www.hilmar-preusse.de.vu/