Re: Non-DFSG TeXLive stuff

2005-11-30 Thread Frank Küster
"Kevin B. McCarty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Norbert Preining wrote: > >> To my reading that thread didn't end in a conclusion that it is not >> acceptable. >> >> Furthermore, IMHO, if it would be *not* acceptable, then we would >> have to remove all, I repeat *ALL* LPPL licensed packages. >

Re: Non-DFSG TeXLive stuff [was: Re: texlive-basic_2005-1_i386.changes REJECTED]

2005-11-29 Thread Kevin B. McCarty
Norbert Preining wrote: > To my reading that thread didn't end in a conclusion that it is not > acceptable. > > Furthermore, IMHO, if it would be *not* acceptable, then we would > have to remove all, I repeat *ALL* LPPL licensed packages. > > I guess this is something we don't want to have in

Re: Non-DFSG TeXLive stuff [was: Re: texlive-basic_2005-1_i386.changes REJECTED]

2005-11-29 Thread Norbert Preining
On Die, 29 Nov 2005, Kevin B. McCarty wrote: > Hmm... in that case, I should mention my experience with XyMTeX, an > organic chemistry LaTeX package included in TeX Live. Anyone else who > wants to comment on non-DFSG-free components of TeX Live may as well > follow up to this email. > > See Debi