>> [...] It is doubtful that the PostScript files are >> the source code referred to by DFSG item 2. More likely is that the >> source files are TeX documents.
> Cool, where is the agreed clearer version of DFSG 2 that says what it > means by source code? > I feel it's a grey area, so if the PS files aren't too difficult to > reconstruct, I'd still let them stay. Wouldnt pass NEW with *those* .ps only. Yes, PS can be source/preferred form for modification for stuff to, there are those people who write it directly, and thats fine. But in this case its pretty clear the source/preferred form for modification is a tex document, so we would request that. -- bye, Joerg >From a NM after doing the license stuff: I am glad that I am not a lawyer! What a miserable way to earn a living. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87vczk6b7q....@gkar.ganneff.de
