On 13.09.05 Sean Finney ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 07:27:26PM +0200, Hilmar Preusse wrote:
Hi, > > . And below we find the conditions you quoted. I'll contact Tim > > if we can patch the files and replace the lines above by > > something like: > > > > "see sem-read.me.gz for copyright conditions" > > > > . Is that acceptable? teTeX 2.0 was released under 1.2 but AFAIK > > this is OK for sarge. etch will have teTeX 3.0 and LPPL 1.3. The > > same wording we still have in 3.0. > > yeah, that sounds good. whether this should affect sarge for a > point-release i think is worth pinging debian-release, i guess. > Is this really RC? Now that we know that the license statement inside the files are wrong and they are really LPPL: Can't we simply downgrade the bug to importand, change the description to "license statement in the files of seminar package is wrong" and then forward that bug to upstream (TE)? Regards, Hilmar -- sigmentation fault
pgpzwtxMgqz5d.pgp
Description: PGP signature
