Request for review: latex-prosper

[Michael A. Peters]

On Wed, 2005-06-01 at 10:21 -0400, Ed Hill wrote:

> Hi Michael,
> 
> Yes, it does all appear to be fixed -- except for the license.  ;-)
> 
> And I apologize for saying it should be BSD because, as Ignacio pointed
> out, it is indeed more similar to an MIT license.  And yes, Jose did
> have two good points (#2 & #3 in his original email) about how to
> improve the package but he completely misunderstood the licensing
> issue--its clearly not LPPL.
> 
> So, please change the license to "MIT" and if no one has any further
> comments I'll send an approval later today.
> 
> Ed
> 

Here it is:

http://mpeters.us/fc_extras/tetex-prosper.spec
http://mpeters.us/fc_extras/tetex-prosper-1.00.4-0.3.src.rpm

mach did successfully build it as well.