Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10488 March 1977, Frank Küster wrote: > >>>>>allrunes dfsg >>>>>Please: Tell me its not true that the DFSG is used as a license there. >>>> As stated in the License file, this list was generated from the TeX >>>> Catalogue, which *can be wrong*! If you check the actual allrunes files, >>>> you see that it is LPPL. >>> I really hope you've done this --- for all files --- before uploading. >>> Also, there are several versions of the LPPL, at least one of which >>> might have DFSG issues. >> Note that teTeX is worse in this respect (#218105), and that having two >> (groups of) maintainers work on this will speed up resolving that bug, >> while rejecting texlive because it's copyright file is still not ideal >> will not. > > Just because something else is worse than this isnt a reason to allow > another bad thing. That argumentation doesnt work.
So far for the first part of my sentence. The second part means: With texlive in Debian, the chances to resolve #218105 for etch get realistic. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
