Norbert Preining <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have merged them and discussion will continue on 356853.
Good. > Frank did a recollection in April, coming down to > > * bbm fonts [OPEN] > Frank mentioned that there is something on the way via Karl Berry > is there any progress? No idea, heard nothing. > * concmath [CLOSED???] > the latex and font packages are under LPPL > see CTAN/macros/latex/contrib/concmath/README > and CTAN/fonts/concmath/README > so what is the problem here, can someone tell me this? I have contacted Ulrik about other license issues, and I guess I mentioned concmath too, but didn't Cc it to this bug (it's probably in a bug report of tetex-doc about fontinst docs). Consider this fixed. Err, wait, is the catalogue up-to-date? > * Donald Arsenau files [OPEN] > Frank, AFAIR you had some discussion with Donald. Did you > get an email at least stating the freeness, so we could include > the email in the copyright file ... I never got an answer. I think I even asked on the TL list whether anyone has better connections to him, but don't remember any result. > * eepic docs [OPEN] > I assume it is the file eepic.tex which lacks any statement. > Puh, it was written in 1988, du we really expect to get any > answer from Conrad Kwok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > No idea if this email is still working and he is still there. > One is taking this up and trying to contact him? I think we should at least give it two tries (direct mail, 10 minutes looking for the name via google and ucdavis.edu). But if that doesn't result in a prompt answer, I would remove the docs. Anyone still using eepic will know how to get it from CTAN. Updating the catalogue might be harder, since I guess it treats docs and style as one entity. > * ae [CLOSED ON CTAN] > This is already solved, updated package is on CTAN > I guess we could include simply the MANIFEST, COPYING, and > README file from CTAN. ... and make sure the catalogue is up-to-date, for generating our copyright file. > * amslatex [HALF-OPEN] > Positive answer from AMS, but no progress after this > Anyone heard anything else? Well, we've got a timeline for the next release but no answer to my "will this include the license fix?" question. If we get this answer, this can get a lenny-ignore tag for sure, without an answer maybe too, based on the older information which gave the etch-ignore. The new version won't be in lenny anyway, if we follow our plan not to go for TL 08 (and I see no reasons to change that decision). Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
