--- Begin Message ---
Dear Lyx Programmer Team,
I upgraded to 1.3.4-x
currently using 1.3.4.1 at the university and going to install
1.3.4-0 backported to woody (debian) at home.
Thanks for LyX, it's a very powerful editor and saved a huge amount of
time for me writing my diploma work.
I h
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 08:49:45PM +0200, Chris Karakas spake thusly:
> Hello,
...
> I propose to delete every occurence of
>
>
>
> Openjade does not support them, so let's forget them! Otherwise, I have to process
> the exported SGML file with the following sed commands:
>
> # Valid only
Hello,
one of my primary objectives is to persuade you to incorporate some changes in LyX
that will render my sed script
http://www.karakas-online.de/mySGML/sedscr
obsolete.
For those of you who are fluent in sed, you will see that I will start one thread for
each substitution in the sedscr
Hello list members,
I subscribed to this list a few days ago and before I start posting I thought I would
introduce myself:
I am a long-term LaTeX and LyX user - I first used LaTeX around 1988 for my papers in
Computer Graphics:
http://www.karakas-online.de/myWork/computer_graphics.html
and
Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> Angus Leeming wrote:
>> Doh! Wrong patch! That was the old one you've already commented on.
>
> Angus, it works very well. Now only the off-by-one error is still
> there.
Before we address that one, here's another clean-up patch. This one
stores a biblio::CiteEngine
> "Jose'" == Jose' Matos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jose'> On Wednesday 12 May 2004 13:54, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> I guess it's OK, also it is a bit strange that we are mixing latex
>> and *ML flavors together.
Jose'> No so strange, if you think latex could evolve to xml. :-)
Jose'
On Wednesday 12 May 2004 13:54, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>
> I guess it's OK, also it is a bit strange that we are mixing latex and
> *ML flavors together.
No so strange, if you think latex could evolve to xml. :-)
Then you would have both flavours of latex.
The right thing to do would b
Georg Baum wrote:
> Am Samstag, 8. Mai 2004 21:56 schrieb Helge Hafting:
>> I see a problem here. What paragraph types should be selectable
>> in such a document? Letters don't have sectioning, the other
>> classes are almost useless without that.
>
> The allowed types depend on the master, of
> "Georg" == Georg Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Georg> Jean-Marc suggested to collect the filenames in validate()
Georg> instead. Unfortunately this has also problems: We get the
Georg> filename in latex() as a byproduct. If we want it in
Georg> validate(), we have to duplicate the logic i
> "Angus" == Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Angus> I've just re-worked http://www.lyx.org/about/klyx.php3 because
Angus> it was feeling quite ancient. Could people please have a look
Angus> and check I've not told any lies ;-)
That's good.
JMarc
> "Angus" == Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Angus> Angus Leeming wrote:
>> I think that this page should mention the native Aqua port and
>> should probably mention Ruurd's native Win32 port also. Opinions?
>> Objections?
Angus> Actually, I think that this page is redundant. It has
> "Jose'" == Jose' Matos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jose'>Any comment on this patch, need to add the support to output
Jose'> docbook xml? If not I will commit it later today.
I guess it's OK, also it is a bit strange that we are mixing latex and
*ML flavors together.
JMarc
Any comment on this patch, need to add the support to output docbook xml?
If not I will commit it later today.
--
José Abílio
LyX and docbook, a perfect match. :-)
Index: po/POTFILES.in
===
RCS file: /usr/local/lyx/cvsroot/lyx
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 09:52:40AM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote:
> LyX is Copyright (C) 1995-2004 by the scores of volunteers listed in
Hmm, at least one bit of it wasn't volunteer work :)
john
Leuven, E. wrote:
"In addition, as a special exception, the LyX Team gives permission to
link the code of this program with any third party, closed source
library and distribute linked combinations including the two."
then I fail to see why we don't say that.
because not everybody agrees on t
> I can introduce such a function into XForms in a matter of minutes.
and anyone could
> If I do so, does the lyx licence become 'de facto GPL'?
that would be an easy way to change licenses.
we could also turn it around: introduce a function that references to a closed library
and the license
Leuven, E. wrote:
>> But, my point is that "a special exception to do something that no
>> longer needs a special exception to do it" is meaningless. If the
>> clause is meaningless then does it have any legal standing and, if
>> not, does the licence not revert naturally to the GPL anyway?
>
> t
> But, my point is that "a special exception to do something that no
> longer needs a special exception to do it" is meaningless. If the
> clause is meaningless then does it have any legal standing and, if
> not, does the licence not revert naturally to the GPL anyway?
the license still allows one
Leuven, E. wrote:
> but i thought that license changes (like reverting to the GPL) need
> to be accepted by every contributor (which prevented us changing the
> license to the general version you suggest above in the first place)
But, my point is that "a special exception to do something that no
l
> "In addition, as a special exception, the LyX Team gives permission to
> link the code of this program with any third party, closed source
> library and distribute linked combinations including the two."
> then I fail to see why we don't say that.
because not everybody agrees on this (andre in p
Leuven, E. wrote:
>> We had a lawyer, Richard Hawkins, who explained that this was
>> indeed how the legal world would interpret this licence.
>> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=lyx-devel&m=104635662605797&w=2
>
> a good reason for keeping the license as it is...
My tidy mind still finds explici
> We had a lawyer, Richard Hawkins, who explained that this was indeed
> how the legal world would interpret this licence.
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=lyx-devel&m=104635662605797&w=2
a good reason for keeping the license as it is...
Rob Lahaye wrote:
>
> Sorry, just a rediculous detail.
>
> "Help->About LyX...", License tab.
>
> Doesn't the LyX Team still have the license/copyrights?
Apparently there's no such legal entity as the 'LyX Team'.
I'd suggest changing this:
LyX is Copyright (C) 1995 by Matthias Ettrich,
1995
Angus Leeming wrote:
> I think that this page should mention the native Aqua port and
> should probably mention Ruurd's native Win32 port also. Opinions?
> Objections?
Actually, I think that this page is redundant. It has been superceeded
by the "LyX ports" section of http://www.lyx.org/download
Sorry, just a rediculous detail.
"Help->About LyX...", License tab.
Doesn't the LyX Team still have the license/copyrights?
Shouldn't that be 2004 then?
Cheers,
Rob.
> We should go back to what the default GPL blurb should be without
> exceptions. (IMHO)
why not keep it there?
the license says basically that it is okay to link with a closed library (xforms that
is). the license gives therefore a precedent for linking to closed libraries and as
such is not
Leuven, E. wrote:
>> We should go back to what the default GPL blurb should be without
>> exceptions. (IMHO)
>
> why not keep it there?
>
> the license says basically that it is okay to link with a closed
> library (xforms that is). the license gives therefore a precedent
> for linking to closed
27 matches
Mail list logo
