Russ Allbery writes:
> Given these facts, I'm personally currently leaning against including
> this license in common-licenses, but I'm still open to being convinced,
> particularly if you think that a broader search for more versions of the
> license will turn up another significant cluster of p
Russ Allbery writes:
> Hilmar Preusse writes:
>> In the moment we have the situation that we are requested to add the
>> license to all TL packages, instead of just adding it to one and put
>> only referers into the others (#473216). This gives us 1.8 MB of
>> license files, which could be saved
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 01:31:53PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Russ Allbery writes:
> > Hilmar Preusse writes:
>
> >> In the moment we have the situation that we are requested to add the
> >> license to all TL packages, instead of just adding it to one and put
> >> only referers into the others
On Fri, 16 May 2008 09:33:38 -0700, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> More relevantly than the total size, IMO (1.8MB isn't really very
> much) is that according to popcon, one-seventh of our systems have at
> least texlive-base installed. If every texlive-base installation
> would benefi
On 16.05.08 Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Hilmar Preusse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi *,
> > In the moment we have the situation that we are requested to add
> > the license to all TL packages, instead of just adding it to one
> > and put only referers into the others (#473216). Thi
Hilmar Preusse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In the moment we have the situation that we are requested to add the
> license to all TL packages, instead of just adding it to one and put
> only referers into the others (#473216). This gives us 1.8 MB of license
> files, which could be saved of the L
On 16.05.08 Bas Wijnen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 03:19:55PM +0200, Hilmar Preusse wrote:
Hi,
> Not every acceptable license needs to be in policy. In fact none of
> them do. The only place in policy where licenses are mentioned, is
> about /usr/share/common-licenses.
Hi,
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 03:19:55PM +0200, Hilmar Preusse wrote:
> in the beginning of 2003 it was discussed if the LPPL is DFSG
> compatible. IIRC the result was the LPPL v1.3a^1, which is assumed to
> be compatible to the DFSG.
If texlive is using it, then I would hope so. Otherwise it shou
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.7.3.0
Severity: wishlist
Hi all,
in the beginning of 2003 it was discussed if the LPPL is DFSG
compatible. IIRC the result was the LPPL v1.3a^1, which is assumed to
be compatible to the DFSG. Hence we (the TeX Live maintainers) would
like to see that license ment
9 matches
Mail list logo
