Branden Robinson writes: > On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 12:01:09PM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote: > > Even here on the list I noted that several people (which I presume to to > > be > > debian-legal regulars) used "public domain" in different senses. > > There is only one sense.
I wasn't questioning that, I was pointing out that while this is legally true, many people misunderstand the fact that they use a "legal term" and use it for something slightly different (and even some people on this list) > Nice try, but the contention is that Knuth's licensing elsewhere > supersedes the terms expressed within the file itself. Have you never > heard of dual-licensing? > > If you disagree, or if this understanding is not clear and unambiguous > -- if the copyright license files that Knuth wrote cannot clearly be > interpreted to apply to each and every file in TeX, METAFONT, and > Computer Modern, respectively -- then the Computer Modern fonts are NOT > DFSG-free. yes I disagree. what copyright license file you are talking about anyway? he hasn't written such a thing, he has written articles and gave talks and he put various comments into files (some of which are contradictory). the text that Claire cited was not a license but an article. i'm sorry if that is going to offend you again, but it seems to me that you are doing here is exactly what I was I was commenting on in the other post (and that felt so affronted about): use a legal situation (dual licensing) or no proper licenses to interpret the situation against the authors wish. > I repeat: the file renaming requirement is not DFSG-free, and you > wanting it to be so will not make it so. DFSG 4 does not permit it. Then the Computer Modern Fonts or TeX are not free (at least according to Branden Robinson) that may well be the case. > So, please, cut it out with the sophistry. A file renaming requirement > is not DFSG-free and never will be unless the DFSG is amended to make it > thus. It is nice to learn all those new words, first troll now sophistry. However the situation seems to me just the other way around, you are trying sophistry here: file renaming requirments are what TeX and friends brought to the world of free software (perhaps not DSFG free, but free anyway). Don Knuth hasn't formalized it in a proper (or improper) license but he has made it very clear that that is what he would like others to follow when using reusing or changing his work(s). frank