> Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 11:47:37 -0500
> From: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 10:27:55AM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> > However, I agree with David Carlisle, that this discussion is
> > moot. The present LPPL conforms to the present DFSG.
>
> "Present" meaning the one currently in force, or "present" meaning the
> one Debian was actually asked to evaluate, that being the LPPL 1.3
> draft?
I mean the current lppl, which is the part of TeX distribution; on
Debian it is /usr/share/doc/tetex-base/lppl.txt.gz
>
> In any event, I have seen no statement by a Debian Developer that the
> LPPL 1.3 draft we saw is DFSG-compliant. Please leave determinations of
> compliance with the DFSG to Debian.
>
> The LaTeX Project is welcome to come up with a set of LaTeX Free
> Software Guidelines if it wishes.
>
Do you really need to start a flame war? Have you anything better to
do with you time?
> > If Debian people are going to change the guidelines, they must realize
> > that this will render unacceptable not only LaTeX, but also a good
> > part of other software, *including* some parts essential for GNU
> > systems like texinfo.=20
>
> A pretty bold statement; if the DFSG changes in *any way*, you *know* that
> they will become unacceptable to LaTeX and the Free Software Foundation?
I am afraid I was not clear enough. This text should read "If Debian
people are going to change the guidleines in such a way that 'rename
if you change' software becomes non-free" etc. Thanks for bringing
this to my attention.
--
Good luck
-Boris
Diplomacy is about surviving until the next century. Politics is about
surviving until Friday afternoon.
-- Sir Humphrey Appleby
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
