MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> =?iso-8859-1?q?Frank_K=FCster?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> While we're at it, there's a different issue in teTeX and TeXLive for
>> which I'd like to have some advice from -legal. ukhyphen.tex has now a
>> supposedly free license, but it has a broader renaming claus
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Fri, 26 May 2006 13:41:16 +0100 MJ Ray wrote:
> > Wow, that's arrogant, not only reserving the package's filename
> > (arguably acceptable to ensure integrity) but the names of many
> > possible derivatives/competitors.
>
> Does this mean that you agree with
On Fri, 26 May 2006 13:41:16 +0100 MJ Ray wrote:
> =?iso-8859-1?q?Frank_K=FCster?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > While we're at it, there's a different issue in teTeX and TeXLive
> > for which I'd like to have some advice from -legal. ukhyphen.tex has
> > now a supposedly free license, but it has a broa
=?iso-8859-1?q?Frank_K=FCster?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> While we're at it, there's a different issue in teTeX and TeXLive for
> which I'd like to have some advice from -legal. ukhyphen.tex has now a
> supposedly free license, but it has a broader renaming clause:
Wow, that's arrogant, not only reser
Thomas Esser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I had done modifications of three files of that package and distributed
> the changed files using the original filename. The author told me that
> this violates his license. Actually, this only happened, because when
> reading his license the first time, I
5 matches
Mail list logo