<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 24/07/2022 15:15, Norbert Preining
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:Yt1UHF8njgOcc5q0@bulldog">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Can you please READ what Markus wrote and think TWICE before writing?</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>I <i><b>READ </b></i>what Markus wrote; I thought <i><b>several
times</b></i> before writing. And after thinking several
times, I still reached the conclusion that Max Chernoff <i><b>cannot</b></i>
and <i><b>should not </b></i>be required to conform with the
requirements of a multi-user licence if he is installing on a
single-user machine. The fact that the TeX Live infrastructure
does not make it possible for KOMA-script to identify
unambiguously whether or not it is being installed on a multi-user
system is clearly a defect in the TeX Live infrastructure which
should be addressed.</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:Yt1UHF8njgOcc5q0@bulldog">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
You are very unconstructive.</pre>
</blockquote>
Please avoid <i>ad hominem</i> attacks, Norbert — it is
unfortunately only too characteristic of your preferred style of
replying, and does little or nothing to enhance your reputation.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:Yt1UHF8njgOcc5q0@bulldog">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
The worst effect is that koma-script is removed from TL and all other
distributions ....</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes, licencing requirements, whilst clearly necessary and
acceptable for proprietary software, are a complete and utter pain
in the @rse in the open-source world — I have never thought
otherwise. The sooner they are abolished for free-as-in-libre
software the better. <br>
</p>
<p>-- <br>
<i>Philip Taylor</i></p>
<br>
</body>
</html>