or whatever is appropriate) for the benefit of
> > LaTeX as a freely extensible and changeable system for exchange of
> > information it is not.
>
> I hope you'll agree with me that this statement is a subjective
> analysis.
Isn't it rather a rather practica
-
This was posted on July 17 to LATEX-L, but the copy for debian-legal
was misaddressed.
-
Perhaps it just comes down to nuances of language.
David Carlisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes to LATEX-L:
> 4) In practice, Debian recognizes "a different name or version number"
>to refer *work
---
Note to LATEX-L readers: it does indeed seem that Frank and David are
making progress in a reasonable negotiation at debian-legal towards a
reconciliation of LPPL and the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
---
There is something I do not understand:
Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, who seems
Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I don't follow the allusion to cascading change requirements.
> >
> > Could someone pose a simple example? Or was the cascade a nightmare?
>
> OK, here's what I was thinking.
>
> Let's imagine something like LaTeX licensed under something like the
>
More nuances of language.
Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes to
debian-legal:
> that you produce sniffenlatex which has its own complete tree and in
> there has identical file names to the pristine LaTeX tree so that both
> trees live side by side.
For new LPPL language it might make se
5 matches
Mail list logo
