Sorry for replying to myself, but the following from the FAQ:
Gnuplot is freeware in the sense that you don't have to pay for
it. However it is not freeware in the sense that you would be
allowed to distribute a modified version of your gnuplot
freely. Please read and accept
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Date: 09 Aug 2002 19:07:26 -0700
In fact, everyone does, in fact, modify TeX before installing it.
Nobody, in fact, installs an unmodified TeX. This is a central fact
massively ignored by so many that I have to say it in each post,
rather
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 14:54:19 +0300
From: Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Are you talking about a compilation copyright here? Those are tricky
beasts. I've never before seen a compilation copyright with a license
that allows modification, and I wonder how it would work.
Excuse
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 16:15:01 +0200
From: Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Frank, thanks for a very lucid and thoughtful comment. It is very
helpful.
I must say, however, that I somewhat disagree with one of your points,
namely:
Thus our point is that building a distribution consisting
First, three quotations:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Date: 09 Aug 2002 19:01:06 -0700
This is a massively inconsistent sentence. But there is one and only
one way to make it consistent. The files are in the public
domain--fully, completely--and the rest of the
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Date: 07 Aug 2002 22:48:36 -0700
Boris Veytsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Now it seems that Thomas does not agree with this understanding and
says that I do not interpret DFSG correctly. It may be so. I am a
Debian *user*, not a Debian
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 02:05:04 -0400
From: Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Completely new systems based on TeX code? Huh?
Glenn, if you do not know about such systems, this does not mean that
they do not exist, right?
Boris, if it's based on TeX code, it's not a completely new
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 20:26:26 +0200
From: Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I will try to describe some worst-case scenario, to describe, what
it is
[the scenario is omitted].
You would be surprised, but this scenario is *not* imaginary. Actually
this is what really happened to me. I
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
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 21:58:40 +0200
From: Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A lunatic author can make it impossible to get a stable system, most
of the time even changes will not help to get a system which is also
feasable to be used with interchanged documents from and to new and
old
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 16:21:10 -0400
From: Simon Law [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My goodness! Here's where all our experiences with dynamic
libraries pay off.
Do you remember how glibc team broke the compatibility between MINOR
versions? It was a jolly sight
For the love of all
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Date: 08 Aug 2002 14:01:29 -0700
The CM fonts prohibit *all* modification--whether with changed names
or not--AFAICT. That makes them completely nonfree. It has nothing
to do with TeX, but with the CM fonts license.
This statement is not
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 17:22:14 -0400
From: Alan Shutko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I doubt it's that. I think it more likely that Thomas is arguing
against your insistence that TeX be removed wholly from Debian by
explaining his interpretation of the issues. In his interpretation,
TeX is
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 22:40:14 +0100
From: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=20
I am afraid you cannot do this: since TeX is trademarked, you cannot
substitute a new font for it without violating trademark.=20
So the package name gets changed, and a couple lines gets added to the
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 17:43:37 -0400
From: Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 10:40:14PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
So the package name gets changed, and a couple lines gets added to the
description. Boo hoo. Trivial and irrelevant.
Which has been done,
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 21:41:45 -0500
From: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, as you noted, the TM (trademark) isn't Knuth's. The trademarks
belong to the AMS and Addison-Wesley. (Though I would hope they have
taken the time to consult with Knuth so as to not enforce the trademarks
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Date: 05 Aug 2002 19:46:09 -0700
You cannot modify tex.web at all, but you are free to patch it with
what you want and distribute the results, including binaries made from
it. This is exactly the sort of thing that DFSG 4 had in mind,
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 23:09:17 +0100
From: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Since it is almost certainly not possible to trademark a filename
anyway, the solution seems fairly clear. We find a free font to
replace this one with, and we drop it in place as cmr10.mf, excising
the old
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 21:16:08 -0500
From: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Are you asking Debian to regard the following license as DFSG-free?
Copyright 1996-2002 Software in the Public Interest, Inc.
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Date: 06 Aug 2002 13:54:08 -0700
Can you modify plain.tex?
Yes, if I do so by patches. I can do the following:
Rename plain.tex to origplain.tex.
Create a new plain.tex that loads origplain.tex and then hacks the
environment as I
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 01:54:02 -0500
From: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
These statements are in tension. If Professor Knuth asserts the latter,
he logically *cannot* be asserting the former.
Knuth is asserting his copyright to impose the restrictions described
above; therefore
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 11:05:28 -0500
From: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You have an unhealthy obsession with filenames. A filename is no more
Who is trying to be offensive now? Branden, cannot we make this a
civil discussion, even given the fact we disagree? Believe me, I've
led enough
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 19:52:28 +0200
From: Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED]
that remark with the historical context is not clear to me as the
names for the collective works have been trademarked (Computer
Modern not i think)
http://www.yandy.com/cm.htm says:
(TM) Computer Modern is a
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 14:07:45 -0500
From: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It is *human* confusion that Knuth has sought to avoid, not confusion on
the part of computers. Strictly speaking, computers don't get confused.
They do what they're told, or throw an exception.
[...]
In
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Date: 05 Aug 2002 13:01:07 -0700
Now, you treat this is as if there are merely differing
interpretations of DFSG-4. But there are not. The only interpretors
of DFSG-4 are the Debian Project. Nobody else. We don't make any
kind of promise
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Date: 05 Aug 2002 13:45:17 -0700
You can't change tex.web, but you can do *anything* you like to it, as
long as you do so via patch files. And in Knuth's wacked out language
(WEB), he even has a decent automatic patch file mechanism *built
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 10:01:40 +0200
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Martin_Schr=F6der?= [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 2002-07-25 16:46:57 -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
Um, no. In the case where package FOO needs package BAR,
\NeedsTeXFormat has BAR tell FOO that BAR is a good version. Using
It can tell
From: Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 26 Jul 2002 12:20:43 +0200
Erm .. the *current* LPPL you say, being LPPL version 1.2? I cannot
find any language in there that allows naming outside of the LaTeX
search path. There seems to be no exceptions to condition (3) about
not
From: Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 26 Jul 2002 13:15:44 +0200
Scripsit Boris Veytsman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you create non-LaTeX, you can move files outside the tree, and
then you are completely free to do whatever you want.
Please substantiate this claim with quotes from
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 19:07:06 +0100
From: David Carlisle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you make a program that isn't called tex, are you saying you can edit
plain.tex and call the modified file plain.tex without being in
contravention of the comment at the top of plain.tex which says
% And
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Date: 24 Jul 2002 22:44:16 -0700
See, we have a different model of evolution--one much much much longer
term.
Our model is one that should not rely on any assumption that
*anything* will be static, because of a desire to think *long* term.
From: Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 11:34:50 -0400
I'd like to suggest a licensing variant for LaTeX which uses a
weakened form of the API restrictions discussed earlier. In its
simplest form, this requires distribution of two versions of LaTeX.
One is under a
From: Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 13:39:49 -0400
1. Your proposition should include not only LaTeX but also TeX since
its licensing terms are essentially the same.
The terms of the copy of TeX on my computer appear to be rather
different: it's public
From: Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 25 Jul 2002 23:36:22 +0200
I can't imagine that it would be acceptable for the LaTeX people that
a change in the LaTeX *kernel* would make it legal to hack in another
file that, from their point of wiev, is part of an entirely
different,
From: Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 17:52:16 -0400
2. You can do whatever you want with TeX code as long as it is not
called TeX.
Yes. But it requires renaming the *work*, not each individual file.
Some of the files, of course, carry more stringent terms.
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 20:31:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 21:17, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
The question here is how to guarantee that a changed overcite.sty
(without renaming) will not be used with pristine LaTeX, right?
This is insanity.
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 12:56:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So let me get this straight. Pristine LaTeX would have, within it, a
mechanism for checking whether a particular file is blessed by the
LaTeX project. Ideally, it could check digital signatures. md5sums
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 22:53:23 +0200
From: Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So it is NOT me or David or anybody else from The LaTeX Team that controls an
this: the terms of LPPL control it as any work under LPPL will be on a LaTeX
system (but not on a fork on) load the sameset of macros
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 13:20:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Boris Veytsman wrote:
Perhaps because LaTeX people want to give other people (basically
themselves) a couple of other rights, namely:
1. The right to use fragments, ideas or algorithms
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 14:58:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Boris Veytsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hate to disappoint you, but this is much more work than you think.
LaTeX is not a Linux project. It is not even a Unix or Posix
project. It is a thing which
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 16:42:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No, it's true of C as well. We wouldn't accept a Perl, for instance, that
forbade incompatible changes to the API, even if it allowed addition of
keywords. It really is the case that we want to preserve the
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 16:42:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No, it's true of C as well. We wouldn't accept a Perl, for instance, that
forbade incompatible changes to the API, even if it allowed addition of
keywords. It really is the case that we want to preserve the
From: Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 23 Jul 2002 10:31:57 -0500
Would it work for you to require the following?
- if the whole is named LaTeX, every changed file must be renamed
- if the whole is named something else, files may be changed without
renaming
What about files
From: Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 21 Jul 2002 22:59:26 -0500
It's crucial to your point, therefore, that there not be a distinction
between running the program from /usr/local/bin or /afs/whatever/bin. I
think we've shown that this isn't the case, since a sysadmin does not
need
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 16:35:42 +1200
From: Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Take my company. There are 4 of us working there. I'm quite likely to want
to make a small modification to some part of LaTeX to make it behave how I
want it to. It's been a long time since I used LaTeX heavily, so
From: Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 22 Jul 2002 00:23:22 -0500
On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 23:43, Boris Veytsman wrote:
From: Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Take my company. There are 4 of us working there. I'm quite likely to want
to make a small modification to some part
From: Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 22 Jul 2002 00:47:39 -0500
On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 23:10, Boris Veytsman wrote:
Exactly. I really do not see the difference between running a program
from /usr/local/bin or /afs/whatever/bin/. What is the difference
between AFS and NFS besides
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Date: 22 Jul 2002 02:27:04 -0700
David Carlisle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Prior to the latex2e licence (which from which LPPL was derived)
latex could be (and often was) locally modified and re-distributed.
It got so bad by around 1990
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Date: 22 Jul 2002 02:28:38 -0700
I think that ultimately it is the University and its users who are
best place to make that decision, and not the LaTeX mafia.
I think that LaTeX users community is pretty happy with the way the
things are.
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 21:31:54 +0200
From: Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To go forward I propose
A) I would like you to come to a conclusion on (1) assuming the above Axiom
The question is, who should say yes and no? Sorry for being
ignorant about the rules -- but is there a
From: Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 22 Jul 2002 15:02:28 -0500
Would it really contradict your professed goals to have three
LaTeX-alike systems floating around, one named LaTeX, one named FooTeX,
and one named BarTeX?
Of course not. Actually there are several systems floating
From: Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 20 Jul 2002 20:15:30 +0200
- to fork you have to rename every package under LPPL
all of them wrong (and explained over and over again by now)
It has been *asserted* over and over again that this is wrong, but
that assertation does not
From: Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 20 Jul 2002 23:32:48 +0200
I still think it can be viewed as excessive. Let me explain.
Imagine that I want to create a typesetting system that behaves just
like LaTeX on all input files, except that input files that say
something like
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 13:30:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Note that in the above, `distribution' of a file means making the file
available to others by any means. This includes, for instance,
installing the file on any machine in such a way that the file is
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 14:32:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Suppose I take a GPL'ed program, change it and put the closed version
(sans sources) on my own machine. I did not violate GPL yet. Now
suppose that I make the drive NFS-exportable and encourage my paying
From: Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 21 Jul 2002 18:07:50 -0500
On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 16:49, Boris Veytsman wrote:
This is the root of our disagreement. I think that a sysadmin that put
a changed copy of latex.fmt in the $TEXFORMATS directory to be used by
his users
From: Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 21 Jul 2002 20:34:32 -0500
You're right, and there may be software you can't install on your AFS
drive in this instance, because you're distributing software to those
thousand computers. This is irrespective of whether any of those
thousand
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 14:12:44 -0400
From: Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 12:55:43PM +0200, Javier Bezos wrote:
but the documents created using that distribution. If I get a
document by John Smith (somehow), how can I see if _his_
system had a modified
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 20:16:43 +0200
From: Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think noone wants to change the (La)TeX-Kernel, noone want do make
.tex-file iterchange impossible. We all want the LaTeX to be the
usefull crossplattform tool that it is.
But though we do not want to do
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 13:21:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
R2. Change the appearance of all documents by (1) using instead of the
command latex file a command modified-latex file or (2)
passing the corresponding options to tex or (3) using my own
version
From: Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 18 Jul 2002 18:30:19 -0500
No, not at all. I think that your R3 right is the point of contention;
we do not believe that the draft of the LPPL we've seen confers that
right.
This is exactly the reason of this discussion.
I hope that the
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 14:45:35 +1200
From: Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Under the LPPL we are not allowed to fix the engine either; we have to wait
for D. E. Knuth to do it. Which I'm sure he would do, unless he happened
to have been run over by a bus that morning (unlikely, as he
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 16:38:03 -0400
From: Boris Veytsman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
LaTeX. Actually, there ARE non-TeX programs that use LaTeX as macro
packages. The most popular among such programs is pdftex. I use pdftex
almost as often as tex. When pdftex is called as pdflatex, it loads
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 01:24:24 -0500
From: Chris Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED]
How does the LPPL actually prevent a distributor from FUBARing their
distribution of LaTeX? The fact is people regularly ignore licenses,
copyrights, patents and trademarks (if this weren't the case, there'd
be
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 12:19:07 -0500
From: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1) Names and titles are not copyrightable. If you want intellectual
property protection in a name, you need a trade mark, service mark,
certification mark, or similar instrument.
I afraid this is not -- so
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 02:07:05 +0200
From: Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED]
5) -- that's a little tricky with that file as it is a boot-trapping TeX file
in essentially every other tex/latex file the identification stuff is on
top but when a kernel is made Tex starts out
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 04:15:20 -0400
From: Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If the core can be changed in any way without changing it directly,
then you can break output exactly as well by this mechanism as you
could by editing it directly.
No, because to change the core you need to
From: Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 06:20:32 -0400
The TeX license is OK because it mandates what we call the program,
but does not say anything about the API. Even if the binary is called
uglytex, it's still easy for me to run it over .tex files. If those
files
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 09:43:15 -0400
From: Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have always appreciated the fact that you could run latex on 10
year-old sources and get the same output, but I have also come to
appreciate the rights granted by DFSG-compliant software.
I think we
From: Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 17 Jul 2002 02:02:25 -0500
One possible important difference: there is, I would imagine, a much
higher degree of consensus about the Debian Social Contract and DFSG
within Debian than I expect there is in the LaTeX user community over
licensing
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 07:42:23 -0500
From: John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
By the way I hope Debian developers do NOT reserve the right to change
King James Version?
How do you think the world got the Revised Standard Version? The importance
of the ability to copy and modify works
I apologize for being so prolific writer on this list. Still, I'd like
to clear an important point.
When we talked about LaTeX being both a program and a language
standard, some Debian people told us that this situation is the same
as with Perl, Python, Ruby etc. I think there is a big difference
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 11:47:37 -0500
From: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 10:27:55AM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
However, I agree with David Carlisle, that this discussion is
moot. The present LPPL conforms to the present DFSG.
Present meaning the one
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 12:36:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In order to be free, it must allow exactly what LPPL seems designed to
prevent. A Debian user can take LaTeX, make it behave differently than
the original, (including producing different output), and distribute
From: Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 17 Jul 2002 15:26:25 -0500
Absolutely nothing in the currently used LPPL prevents you from
creating your version of LaTeX, call it latex-improved, and invoke it
by a command
latex-improved file.foo
Absolutely nothing in any version of
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 21:55:42 +0100
From: Timothy Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(1) The intersection of those interested in LaTeX
and those seriously interested in Debian is almost empty, I imagine.
I would have said it was empty,
except that Frank Mittelbach seems to belong to both sets.
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 16:25:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If these were the only restrictions (change contact info and change
the name of the *program*, not the individual files), then we wouldn't
be having this argument.
I am afraid you do not understand the way
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 03:33:57 +0200
From: Peter Palfrader [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 17 Jul 2002, Boris Veytsman wrote:
Note that you do not need to this if you want to change latex
behavior. Continuing the analogy, you do have an analog of LD_PRELOAD
variable, so you do not need
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 22:59:13 +0100
From: David Carlisle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
if that were the case you would presumably remove TeX and the TeX
fonts from Debian as well. In that case the licence on LaTeX would
be moot as without TeX you can't use LaTeX whatever the licence.
Greetings:
I apologize for butting in in the ongoing discussion. Moreover, I am
neither a lawyer nor a LaTeX3 team member (a couple of my programs are
in the distribution, both under GPL and LPPL). Nevertheless I hope
that my thoughts might be of use.
I am a Debian and LaTeX user, so the
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 19:18:02 -0500
From: Chris Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I don't think anyone here has a problem with a license that says If
your LaTeX doesn't pass such and such a validation suite, you can't
call it LaTeX, but you can do whatever else you want to do with it.
This
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 17:28:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Now you seem to be saying that there are so many ways to modify Latex
that I would never need to change article.cls. What if article.cls is
itself broken? Why can't I fix it and distribute that fix?
You
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 03:41:42 +0300
From: Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 07:52:09PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
B. The *name* TeX is reserved for Knuth's program. If you program
is called TeX, it must satisfy triptest. You can NOT correct bugs
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 22:48:28 -0500
From: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 09:23:14PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
TeX people are from a different culture. TeX is not going to evolve.
It is frozen. As Knuth said, These fonts are never going to change
again
84 matches
Mail list logo
