> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) > Date: 08 Aug 2002 12:52:47 -0700
> No. I want to say: > > Knuth wanted to make TeX free, and he did. And the LaTeX people want > a *different* license from the TeX license--indeed, they want one that > is quite possibly non-free. > > Because the LaTeX people have seriously misunderstood the TeX license > in several areas, they incorrectly think their license is basically > the same as the TeX license. Thomas, the wishes of Knuth need not to be divined. He expressed them quite clearly. Why do not you read some FAQ, say, http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=TeXfuture We discussed this issue SEVERAL times. I am completely exhausted repeating the same simple truths. I afraid you are in state of denial. You have certain ideas about programmer's freedom. You value these ideas too much, you just cannot accept the fact that Knuth does not share them. Since this cannot be done rationally (how can one reconcile the idea that TeX can be modified gradually with the well expressed wish of Knuth for TeX to be frozen after his death?), you do it irrationally. In one paragraph you scold Knuth for not being clear enough in his writings, in the next one you say that he is clear and unambigous. This is not self-consistent, but rationalizations need not be self-consistent. Then you accuse the LaTeX community in misunderstanding Knuth. Again, it is not consistent with the idea that TeX license is clear and free (and with the simple fact that TeX community keeps contacts with DEK), but this is normal for the state of denial to overlook glaring logical gaps. It is all very interesting, but I am afraid it is outside of my scope. If you want to keep the notion that TeX is wonderfully free and the TeX community is misguided, while you are the fountian of knowledge, it is fine with me. If you wish, I agree that you used LaTeX before Lamport, or that you are Napoleon and King of Persia simultaneously. Surely, why not? > > > Therefore your drop-in replacement without changing the name > > of TeX is violation of license, and no amount of word juggling will > > ever change this. > > Which license? Exactly! Can you quote it? > The trademark of the American Mathematical Society. Thomas, there was a clear experiment showing that you are not right. In 1996 Slackware packaged NTeX with changed cmr* files. Note that NTeX people *did* publicise the fact that their fonts are not Knuthian; they used this as an argument for their distro ("New and improved fonts based on the Professor Knuth set" was their line). Knuth publicly accused them that they violated his rights (I do not remember whether he mentioned copyright, trademark or both, and this page is no longer avialable on the Web). There was no court case; rather Slackware chose to switch to teTeX. I never had heard of NTeX thereafter. I do remember the pesky taks of upgrading all my Slackware boxes. I definitely do not want to repeat this on my Debian boxes if Debian comunity decides that it has the right to make such drop-in replacement. -- Good luck -Boris Memory should be the starting point of the present.