On Sun, 2002-07-14 at 14:53, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 13-Jul-02, 23:54 (CDT), Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The first thing that becomes clear is their desire that LaTeX be as
> > static and predictable as Microsoft Word over layout issues.
>
> Uhh, that's a joke, right? Or have
On 13-Jul-02, 23:54 (CDT), Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The first thing that becomes clear is their desire that LaTeX be as
> static and predictable as Microsoft Word over layout issues.
Uhh, that's a joke, right? Or have you really never used MS Word? As
someone who has had the misf
On Sun, 2002-07-14 at 12:05, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Jeff, it's not clear under your license how Debian could package a
> modified version. OUr binary packaging system (and the DFSG) do not
> really allow modifications to be separate from the original
> particularly for compiled works. I may be miss
Jeff, it's not clear under your license how Debian could package a
modified version. OUr binary packaging system (and the DFSG) do not
really allow modifications to be separate from the original
particularly for compiled works. I may be missing something obvious.
Assuming that this license were a
On Thu, 2002-07-04 at 16:08, C.M. Connelly wrote:
> The LaTeX Project Public License
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[...]
> We, the LaTeX3 Project, believe that the conditions below give you
> the freedom to make and distribute modified versions of The Program
> that conform with whatever tec
5 matches
Mail list logo
