On 2004-01-20 19:06:27 + Jakob Bohm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Actually, it can be read as either the Latin (as explained
above) or as an abbreviation of "Regarding". [...]
I suspect it cannot, as there is no denotation of abbreviation. For
the Latin meaning, I cite Collins Concise Englis
To: debian-legal Mailing list
Debian Project
debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Re: The recent postings on the subject of the "Re:" abbreviation
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 03:02:17PM +, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Roland Stigge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Besides, isn't "
Roland Stigge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Besides, isn't "Re:" the abbrev. for "Reply"? The letter is not a reply.
No, it's Latin, ablative singular of "res" (thing), which is also the
first element of "res publica" and part of several Latin expressions
used in English legal jargon.
On 2004-01-14 14:52:45 + Roland Stigge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I would prefer the current German DIN-Brief (Deutsche Industrie-Norm)
format, because I know it best. But feel free to recommend another
LaTeX
document style.
I generally use \documentclass{letter} \usepackage[british]{bab
Hi MJ,
Wed, 14 Jan 2004 12:26:53 +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-01-14 11:53:08 + Roland Stigge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Subject: The license of LaTeX2HTML
> I think "Re: " is more normal for British letters and placed below
> the salutation.
I would prefer the current German DIN-Brief (D
I've been meaning to reply sooner, but parsing tex seems to have been
too much effort for the free time available. :-/
On 2004-01-14 11:53:08 + Roland Stigge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Subject: The license of LaTeX2HTML
I think "Re: " is more normal for British letters and placed below t
Hi Branden,
thanks for your suggestions.
Tue, 13 Jan 2004 15:12:07 -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> If it's not too late, I have a suggestion.
>
> Change:
>
> Changing the license terms would allow the program to return to our
> main distribution and facilitate the already large user base of
> La
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 10:42:18PM +0100, Roland Stigge wrote:
> Hi,
>
> thanks Matt, for polishing my first draft of the letter[1]. I
> incorporated your changes, made the wording "University of Leeds" more
> consistent and changed "Debian GNU/Linux" back to "Debian" (IMO the
> project name is "D
Hi,
thanks Matt, for polishing my first draft of the letter[1]. I
incorporated your changes, made the wording "University of Leeds" more
consistent and changed "Debian GNU/Linux" back to "Debian" (IMO the
project name is "Debian", while "Debian GNU/Linux" is a product).
I will submit the attached
On Sun 4 January 2004 02:55, Roland Stigge wrote:
> since we agreed that the current latex2html license is non-free[1] and I
> moved the package to non-free, the original author (Nikos Drakos) and
> the current maintainer (Ross Moore) signalled willingness to change the
> license. But we possibly n
Hi,
since we agreed that the current latex2html license is non-free[1] and I
moved the package to non-free, the original author (Nikos Drakos) and
the current maintainer (Ross Moore) signalled willingness to change the
license. But we possibly need an agreement from Leeds University. I
prepared a
11 matches
Mail list logo
