[I am not subscribed to debian-tetex-maint.] On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 02:38:20PM +0200, Hilmar Preusse wrote: > On 11.07.04 Branden Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > Hmmm. I don't suppose it's a *huge* deal, but do you think we > > could ask upstream to apply the new LPPL to the existing codebase? > > This doesn't require anything more than an email on their part, > > which we could then stick in debian/copyright. > > > Well, our upstream is TE. Most of the code is not written by him, so > he doesn't really have control over these things. Take e.g. > KOMA-Script: the package is explicitely linked with LPPL 1.0. If you > ask Markus Kohm, he'll refuse to upgrade to the next version (at > least I read some postings about this by him in dctt). Well we could > put 1.3 into teTeX 2.0.2 and hope, that most of the problems will be > resolved then...
Er, well...it doesn't really help the package's DFSG problems if the DFSG-free version of the license isn't actually used. Also, is it the new version of the LPPL Markus Kohm doesn't want to upgrade to, or the new version of some software? I think it was established during the long, long discussions on -legal that previous versions of the LPPL were not DFSG-free. I'm open to suggestions for how we should cope with this. -- G. Branden Robinson | Debian GNU/Linux | Music is the brandy of the damned. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- George Bernard Shaw http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
