Re: texlive-basic_2005-1_i386.changes REJECTED
- To: Anthony DeRobertis <anthony@derobert.net>
- Cc: debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org, Joerg Jaspert <ftpmaster@debian.org>, Debian TeX live Maintainers <pkg-texlive-maint@lists.alioth.debian.org>, Debian Installer <installer@ftp-master.debian.org>, debian-devel@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: texlive-basic_2005-1_i386.changes REJECTED
- From: Hilmar Preusse <hille42@web.de>
- Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 23:38:55 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20051204223855.GB3004@preusse>
- Mail-followup-to: Anthony DeRobertis <anthony@derobert.net>, debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org, Joerg Jaspert <ftpmaster@debian.org>, Debian TeX live Maintainers <pkg-texlive-maint@lists.alioth.debian.org>, Debian Installer <installer@ftp-master.debian.org>, debian-devel@lists.debian.org
- In-reply-to: <438BBD8E.4090203@derobert.net>
- References: <E1EgSCo-000863-Cd@spohr.debian.org> <20051128070734.GA602@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> <438BBD8E.4090203@derobert.net>
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/
Reply to: