Konstantin Khomoutov wrote:
[...]
> There's still no such thing as the "GNU Public License", what the
> author seemingly try to refer to is called "GNU General Public
> License", that is, the 'G' in "GPL" stands for "General", not for "GNU".
IRL that's actually a link to the FSF page, so it seems
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 14:43:55 +0100
David Given wrote:
> > The problems described in #501638 would mean that the package would
> > not be allowed back into Debian unless fixed.
>
> It looks like this isn't an issue any more --- the relevant paragraph
> from the docs is now:
>
> Ted is free s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Neil Williams wrote:
[...]
> The problems described in #501638 would mean that the package would
> not be allowed back into Debian unless fixed.
It looks like this isn't an issue any more --- the relevant paragraph
from the docs is now:
Ted is fr
Hello,
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 01:28:39 -0500
Ztatik Light wrote:
> The only "valid" .DOC editors in Debian are LibreOffice and AbiWord,
> which are both somewhat bloated (especially LibreOffice, as it's in
> Java) ...
That's not true. LibreOffice isn't written in Java, it's written in C++.
--
WB
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 01:28:39 -0500
Ztatik Light wrote:
> Subject: ITP: ted -- lightweight .DOC editor
There is also another package requesting the name ted - #605503. The
package should be renamed to something more unique.
Your message didn't successfully change the title of the bug - please
se
Subject: ITP: ted -- lightweight .DOC editor
Package: wnpp
Version: 2.22; reported 2012-01-04
Severity: wishlist
* Package name : ted
Version : 2.22
Upstream Author : Mark de Does
* URL : http://nllgg.nl/Ted/
* License : GPL
Description : lightweight .DOC editor
This was included in previous ver
6 matches
Mail list logo
