On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 12:00:58AM +0200, Lars Hellström wrote:
> OK, so the patch files can be distributed, but where is the mechanism which
> causes TeX to use them? Well, the DFSG doesn't say there has to be one!
> Patch files must be allowed to be distributed, but there is no condition
> that r
I said:
> >A key difference is that the CM fonts source need not be installed
> >(tetex automatically runs METAFONT in some cases, but it could easily
> >be pointed at different source names).
> >
> >Users use *.tfm files when running TeX, and the restrictions on *.mf
> >names are not restriction
On Sat, 10 Aug 2002 15:40:19 -0400, Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I must say, however, that your letter gave an insight to me. I've
>reread DFSG-4 once more and I think I see how TeX, CM and LaTeX ARE in
>fact DFSG-free.
>
> The license may restrict source-code from being distribut
At 08.38 +0200 2002-08-11, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>Lars Hellström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> However concerning the CM fonts I think you're wrong, since the conditions
>> for these are indeed very similar to those of the LPPL; it's just the case
>> that the LPPL relaxes these conditions
On Mon, 5 Aug 2002 21:22:24 +0200, Frank Mittelbach
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>no i'm saying that my understanding of his
[Donald E. Knuth's]
>intentions is that he wants to
>ensure that within a TeX system (ie program plus surroundings)
>
> \font\foo=cmr10
>
>refers to his CMR10 and
>
> \input pl
On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 11:49:00PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> Thomas, I'd be grateful if you do not consider my reply as an
> attack. It is a friendly observation. You see, I've been in your
> shoes.
>
> You know, I have been in company of great talents. Several times I had
> a honor to talk
Lars Hellström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However concerning the CM fonts I think you're wrong, since the conditions
> for these are indeed very similar to those of the LPPL; it's just the case
> that the LPPL relaxes these conditions in some cases. If you think a
> "rename file before modific
On Sat, Aug 10, 2002 at 06:59:59PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> I am not asking whether this is a good thing; my question is whether
> this is free, PROVIDED that the ways of modification I mentioned are
> explicitly allowed by the license?
Debian reserves the right to interpret the DFSG in such
On Sun, Aug 11, 2002 at 01:01:44AM +0200, Lars Hellström wrote:
> (I've rather gotten the impression that the DFSG is like the Torah
> (even though the text is not necessarily final yet) and debian-legal
> is like the ongoing compilation of the Talmud, but having Methuselah
> around opens up some n
On Sat, Aug 10, 2002 at 02:48:35PM +0200, Lars Hellström wrote:
> You're avoiding the question.
You didn't ask one (except for one which you admitted was off-topic).
> >Therefore, I reject your analysis.
>
> Saying so perhaps makes you feel better, but it doesn't make the analysis
> go away.
Co
On Fri, 9 Aug 2002 03:11:36 +0300, Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 04:43:59PM +0200, Lars Hellström wrote:
>> I suggest that this interpretation of "name" here is at best an implausible
>> one. For one thing the word "name" has a number of interpretations, as it
On 08 Aug 2002 14:59:43 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote:
>I like the DFSG-4 fine. Indeed, it covers TeX, and crucially so,
>because tex.web permits modification only in the form of patches.
>Similarly, cmr10.mf permits modification only if you change its
>filename. Both of t
On Thu, 8 Aug 2002 18:15:19 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 04:43:59PM +0200, Lars Hellström wrote:
>> If you think such a license is non-free because the newfoobar in the first
>> argument of \ProvidesPackage is "functional" then it would be inconsistent
> Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 18:53:58 -0400
> From: Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Would you consider libfoo-dev.deb to be free?
>
> Is this not what proprietary library vendors sell? They sell
> shrink-wrapped libraries, with copyrighted headers that you may use but
> must not modify. Th
On Sat, Aug 10, 2002 at 06:36:56PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> Let me ask you this question. Suppose the libfoo-dev.deb package has
> only include files (no compiled libs and objects). The author of the
> package requires that absolutely no changes are done to the
> includes. However, you have t
> Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 16:35:50 -0400
> From: Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> That is silly. You can definitely modify the behaviour of the C
> compiler through the C preprocessor. You can do it in C++ with
> templates. Perl allows you to fiddle with its symbol table (typeglobs)
> so th
On Sat, Aug 10, 2002 at 03:40:19PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> However, there is a big difference between TeX programs and, say, C or
> Perl programs. The innards of the C compiler or Perl interpreters are
> hidden from the user program. You cannot patch your compiler or
> interpreter DURING the
> 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.
>
Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 09:57:18PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > % THIS IS THE OFFICIAL COMPUTER MODERN SOURCE FILE cmr10.mf BY D E KNUTH.
> > > % IT MUST NOT BE MODIFIED IN ANY WAY UNLESS THE FILE NAME IS CHANGED!
> >
> > It contains the
On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 11:49:00PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> As I understand it, Knuth put in the public domain the *code* of TeX,
> Metafont, CM fonts etc. Fragments of his code, his creative ideas and
> insights are freely used in many derived works. However -- and here is
> the most profoun
On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 09:57:18PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > % THIS IS THE OFFICIAL COMPUTER MODERN SOURCE FILE cmr10.mf BY D E KNUTH.
> > % IT MUST NOT BE MODIFIED IN ANY WAY UNLESS THE FILE NAME IS CHANGED!
>
> It contains the clear intent that you *can* modify the file, provided
>
Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, earlier you claimed that only LaTeX community is completely
> confused and misguided about our licenses. Now you you seem to claim
> that both TeX users and Knuth himself do not understand what he
> wrote. A rather cheeky notion.
I spoke of those
Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Now you are tempted to consider Knuth to be ignorant -- worse, to be
> an evidently stupid person who does not realize he is ignorant and
> pontificates about things he has no business to talk about. Well,
> since it is established that Knuth is a great
> 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,
> ra
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 s
Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I do NOT think that Debian really wishes to do this or to change
> LaTeX. My understanding it that they want to have a *right* to do
> this, but do not wish to exercise this right. The argument between
> Thomas and me was exactly this: Thomas thinks tha
Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I fear you miss the cruical point here:
>
> Thomas interpretation is that of a crippled fragment of the TeX system that
> he wants to judges on its own (ie let's look at TeX "the program")
> while Boris, David, and I try to explain that it is our
> 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 consi
Alan Shutko writes:
> Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 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.
>
> I doubt it's that. I t
On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 04:43:59PM +0200, Lars Hellström wrote:
> I suggest that this interpretation of "name" here is at best an implausible
> one. For one thing the word "name" has a number of interpretations, as it
> is a very general term. If your legalistic interpretation really was all
> that
> Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 18:20:12 -0500
> From: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> It's obvious to me that Boris wants TeX martyred at the hands of the
> DFSG, presumably so he can editorialize on how Debian has lost its way
> from the "true freedom" that is represented by TeX.
>
I am sor
On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 05:22:14PM -0400, Alan Shutko wrote:
> 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 DSFG-free, and in your
On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 04:43:59PM +0200, Lars Hellström wrote:
> If you think such a license is non-free because the newfoobar in the first
> argument of \ProvidesPackage is "functional" then it would be inconsistent
> to not declare as non-free also a license that only requires a version
> number
Lars Hellström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [1] On a completely off-topic matter, shouldn't that rather be "your
> wanting it to be so", with a possesive pronoun and the -ing form of the
> verb? Perhaps someone natively English-speaking can clarify this; I suspect
> it could be a matter on the l
On Mon, 5 Aug 2002 11:10:12 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 09:53:20AM -0600, Julian Gilbey wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 09:33:37AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> > I repeat: the file renaming requirement is not DFSG-free, and you
>> > wanting it
Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Now there are people who do not like DFSG-4. Frank was told when he
> submitted the first draft of LPPL "Act as if there is no DFSG-4,
> because we do not like it anyway". They want to interpret DFSG-4 in
> such a way that it does not cover anything. Th
> 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
Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 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 correct.
>
> http://www.ctan.o
> 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 i
David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Knuth wants TeX to be frozen at version pi when he dies;
> thereafter, no further changes may be made to Knuth's source."
>
> This doesn't make clear what TeX covers, nor what can be done
> with it. Depending on how you read "Knuth's source", it could
Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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.
I doubt it's that. I think it more likely that Thomas is arguin
On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 04:21:10PM -0400, Simon Law wrote:
> My goodness! Here's where all our experiences with dynamic
> libraries pay off.
>
> For the love of all that is good in this world, when the LaTeX3
> team finally releases it to the world: please include these two things:
>
> 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
At 04:56 PM 8/8/02 -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
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
You think that's clear? The only thing pertinent to the argument, and
> 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 a
Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It is all very interesting, but I am afraid it is outside of my
> scope.
As you've said several times, and proved quite well, you're ignorant
about the issues. Please, therefore, stop muddling the discussion.
> If you want to keep the notion that Te
> 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 t
On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 03:04:11PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> > 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 su
* Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020808 21:04]:
> [the scenario is omitted].
> You would be surprised, but this scenario is *not* imaginary. Actually
> this is what really happened to me. I think this story might be
> instructive in this discussion, so please bear with me.
The situation I tr
Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> > Date: 08 Aug 2002 12:19:03 -0700
>
> > > accepted them *includes* a guy named Donald Knuth. You want the right
> > > to interpret DFSG; don't you think Knuth deserves the right ot have a
> > > say in
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> Date: 08 Aug 2002 12:19:03 -0700
> > accepted them *includes* a guy named Donald Knuth. You want the right
> > to interpret DFSG; don't you think Knuth deserves the right ot have a
> > say in interpretation of his license?
>
> Of course. But he
Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You see, I find this clause in a precedent. EC fonts are exactly this
> -- a derivative of CM fonts under other names. The "community" that
> accepted them *includes* a guy named Donald Knuth. You want the right
> to interpret DFSG; don't you think Knut
> 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 t
* Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020808 00:16]:
> TeX and LaTeX are not just great programs. They are also document
> exchange programs. I need to know that TeX on my installation is the
> same as TeX on the e-print server or on my publisher's machine.
>
> Of course, Debian is free to distri
> 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
> 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*, n
On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 01:38:27AM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
(my reply is a subset of TB's; elided)
> > 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'
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 developer. However, you seem to
> accept the second way to be valid.
The problem is t
> Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 00:55:52 -0400
> From: Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > I am not a lawyer, so I cannot claim understanding of intricacies of
> > licenses. However, I think I understand Knuth's lucid writings about
> > his intentions with respect to TeX. He many times said that he want
On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 12:03:16AM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> Thomas, you rightly say that only Debian can interpret DFSG. While I
> agree with you in that, it seems that now you want to have the power
> to interpret the word "free". This is, in my opinion, a far-fetched
It's already been expl
Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas, you rightly say that only Debian can interpret DFSG. While I
> agree with you in that, it seems that now you want to have the power
> to interpret the word "free". This is, in my opinion, a far-fetched
> idea. TeX community used the word "free"
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> Date: 07 Aug 2002 17:41:44 -0700
>
> Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > We already discussed this. Because this is the goal of TeX. That is
> > why TeX uses scaled point for calculations. The aim is to have exactly
> > same output
Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We already discussed this. Because this is the goal of TeX. That is
> why TeX uses scaled point for calculations. The aim is to have exactly
> same output on same machines.
But then the goal of TeX is to be non-free. However, as already
indicated by m
On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 07:23:24PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> Note that etex, omega and pdftex do not make this claim:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ etex
> This is e-TeX, Version 3.14159-2.1 (Web2C 7.3.7)
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ pdftex
> This is pdfTeX, Version 3.14159-1.00a-prete
> Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 18:50:32 -0400
> From: Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> He said "the package name gets changed". The package name is "tetex",
> not "tex", so that's been done. ("Package name" has a very specific
> meaning in Debian, and there is no "tex" package in Debian.) The
>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> Date: 07 Aug 2002 15:34:43 -0700
> Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > TeX and LaTeX are not just great programs. They are also document
> > exchange programs. I need to know that TeX on my installation is the
> > same as TeX on the
On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 06:26:30PM -0400, Boris Veytsman 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, already, no? s/tex/tetex/.
>
> Glenn, to say the truth, I am appaled by the
Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> TeX and LaTeX are not just great programs. They are also document
> exchange programs. I need to know that TeX on my installation is the
> same as TeX on the e-print server or on my publisher's machine.
Sure!
But why do you need that the TeX that J
> 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 don
> 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 t
On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 10:40:14PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > I am afraid you cannot do this: since TeX is trademarked, you cannot
> > substitute a new font for it without violating trademark.
>
> So the package name gets changed, and a couple lines gets added to the
> description. Boo hoo
On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 06:29:21PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> > 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
>
Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You *do* modify this file, using a sophistic argument to tell that you
> do not. You probably can do this on your own computer because
> copyright and trademark laws cannot forbid you to modify your own copy
> of a work.
Incidentally, copyright laws m
Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The beginning of this file contains the phrase:
>
> % And don't modify the file under any circumstances.
>
> You *do* modify this file, using a sophistic argument to tell that you
> do not. You probably can do this on your own computer because
> copyr
> 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
Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> > Date: 05 Aug 2002 21:41:27 -0700
>
> >
> > But can I modify the behavior of any part of LaTeX, including what
> > happens when I load article.sty?
>
> Can you modify plain.tex?
Yes, if I do so by
> > But can I modify the behavior of any part of LaTeX, including what
> > happens when I load article.sty?
>
> Yes. But in order to do so, you either have to:
> 1) request such a change in your document (\documentclass{myarticle}, or
> \renewcommand\documentclass or something like that)
That d
On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 01:45:17PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
GUYS, CUT IT OUT WITH THE CCS. I KNOW BOTH OF YOU READ DEBIAN-LEGAL,
AND YOU'LL NOTE I HAVEN'T BEEN CCING YOU RECENTLY.
--
G. Branden Robinson|Damnit, we're a
> 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 o
On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 02:01:58PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> >
> > Unless Professor Knuth applies for trademark protection in the names
> > "TeX", "METAFONT", and "Computer Modern", the only tool (as far as I
> > know) he has at his disposal to *legally* enforce his wishes is
> > copyright la
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> All right. It doesn't harm my analysis to presume that the message
> quoted by Ms. Connelly does not constitute a grant of license to any
> party. We're still in the position of needing the copyright notices and
> license terms inside TeX, METAFONT,
> 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
>
On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 12:15:32AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 05:03:02PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> > I think you mix things here a lot.
> >
> > 1. We already discussed the fact that LaTeX does have a patch
> >mechanism. We demonstrated it here.
>
> The cruci
On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 10:23:54PM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> Branden Robinson writes:
> > It would be trivially easy to circumvent computer checks. What about
> > case-sensitivity? Can I trust a computer to catch ALL of the following
> > uses of "TeX"?
>
> I'm talking of requiring that
On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 04:22:27PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> Let us clarify this a bit. Suppose I change the file cmr10.tfm without
> changing its name. As long as TeX does not see it, I do not think
> Knuth objects. However, if TeX DOES see it, it does not behave like
> the trademarked TeX wi
On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 10:11:18PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> My fellow Debian developers are generally not shy about letting me (or
> the whole world, for that matter) know when they disagree with me.
I think in this case the silence should be put down to ennui rather than
tacit agreement.
On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 09:22:24PM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
> no he was talking about these three, but that is the article published in
> tugboat and i don't see that it states at any point that it supersedes
> anything put on individual files by him. It wasn't written as a license
> statemen
Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> absolutely not, you can not *anything* you like if you want to call it TeX
> afterwards. you can only patch it in those areas that Don forsaw as needing
> patches to be usable under different OS's. You are in particular not allowed
> to add features t
Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 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. Thi
> 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,
>
Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ok. Does this mean they must have the freedom to distribute the
> modified cmr10.tfm in any manner, *including* packaging the file with
> TeX?
Sure! Why not?
Free software is even about the freedom to be malicious. As with free
speech, we trust t
> 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 tra
> Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 08:08:52 -0600 (MDT)
> From: "Joe Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> >
> > But can I modify the behavior of any part of LaTeX, including what
> > happens when I load article.sty?
>
> Yes. But in order to do so, you either have to:
> 1) request
Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> not at all, but I'm if i'm trying to explain that once more to you, you are
> probably telling me again that you have far more experience than I concerning
> TeX and LaTeX.
Since I never said that, I can conclude only that you are not really
capable
Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Problem is there is no point to talk about those individually. Don is not
> interested to have a bare TeX alone being TeX; he is interested that a file
> like texbook.tex is producing identical output on different TeX systems and
> that is where all t
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> A hypothetical question. LaTeX has a facility of patching at compile
>> time -- the loading of system-wide or user-wide .cfg files. Would you
>> consider LaTeX license DFSG-free if it would explicitly mention this
>> patchi
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> Date: 05 Aug 2002 21:41:27 -0700
>
> But can I modify the behavior of any part of LaTeX, including what
> happens when I load article.sty?
>
Can you modify plain.tex?
> And am I allowed to do that by taking the original article.sty and
> using
> On Tue, 6 Aug 2002 08:08:52 -0600 (MDT), "Joe Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
> Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>> Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> A hypothetical question. LaTeX has a facility of patching at compile
>>> time -- the loading of system-wide or user-wide .cfg
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~ > more ~/tex.web
> > % This program is copyright (C) 1982 by D. E. Knuth; all rights are
> > reserved.
> > % Copying of this file is authorized only if (1) you are D. E. Knuth, or if
> > %
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I'm talking of requiring that the work identifies itself by name via
> > interface to other works (something that could be checked by a
> > computer)
>
> What I want to highlight is how radically different th
1 - 100 of 140 matches
Mail list logo
