Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> RMS considered TeX part of the GNU System from the writings that I'm >> familiar with since very early on in the development of that system, so >> apparently, at least from that, did not have a problem with the copying >> policy. I suppose it's possible that he was unaware of it, but that >> seems very much unlike his normal extreme care with such things. > TeX doesn't *have* a renaming requirement, actually. You can call the > files *anything you want*, but you can't call the system "TeX" unless > you meet certain conditions. Naming requirements on packages and such > are harmless, naming requirements on *files* are a much different > question. The CM fonts are generally considered to be part of the TeX system, since they're the default fonts, and I believe they've had this renaming requirement at least for quite some time. I certainly remember it clearly from when I first started using TeX in the early 1990s and had the impression that it was fairly old then. > If the question is "what can our users do", we might well decide that we > want to interpret things differently, with the goal of arguing (on > behalf of our users) for the broadest possible freedoms. Right, I understand your distinction between what Debian does and what its users do, and it makes sense to me. I just still would never say that it's okay to break this kind of request, although I might say that it's legally permissible. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
