Note: this thread started out as a discussion of whether the ConTeXt
formats should be enabled by default in teTeX. Behind this is an
underlying concern that many system administrators will only support
the default, so if a user wants ConTeXt they will have to create their
own texmf directory tree (this is, in fact, the situation where I work).
I think some other distributions (4TeX 5?) either enable ConTeXt by
default or at least make it quite easy for users to enable ConTeXt thru
a configuration menu.
On Tue, 19 Sep 2000, Thomas Esser wrote:
> Dear George,
>
> > 1) ConTeXt requires the table macro package, which AFAIK is not free, viz.
> > licen-en.pdf
> >
> > [3.5] This licence does not apply to components of the official version
> > that are provided by third parties.
> >
> > 2) The license says the sources are GPL's, but adds constraints on how you
> > can use ConTeXt, viz
> >
> > [5.3] Because the manuals provided by Pragma ADE are also examples of what
> > can be done by ConTeXt, their layout is bound to these documents. In
> > large this also applies to the whole ConTeXt demonstration suite.
> > Additional, third party documentation, therefore may not use the same
> > layout characteristics, like graphics (and tricks), unless permission is
> > granted.
>
> I know Hans very well and the change from the old very restrictive
> license to the better GPL was mostly triggered by discussions that I
> had with Hans. I am quite sure that if you tell Hans that his license
> has contradictions and unacceptable restrictions (from the free software
> point of view), he'll most propably change that.
I don't think there is anything wrong with the ConTeXt license. From my
viewpoint, the two practical issues are a) third party ingredients such as
the Lucida fonts and table.tex, and b) the entirely reasonable desire to
preserve rights to _designs_ of documents created with ConTeXt. Hans has
no control over third party licenses, so I can't fault him there.
In the past, most TeX documents have tried to achieve uniformity of
design, and have not attempted to be innovative. Now we are starting to
see TeX used in innovative ways. Particularly in the case of ConTeXt,
where innovative designs are likely to be tightly coupled to ConTeXt
macros (for which we have the sources!), it may not be hard to mimic a
design. I'm all in favor of innovation, and the ConTeXt license
encourages that by making the tools open (as opposed to keeping them a
trade secret) and then asking that you not just copy designs without
getting permission, which might encourage some people to make their own
designs.
> It seems like you understand the current Context licence better than me.
> Would you please be so kind to get in touch with Hans and discuss this
> with him?
>
> Thomas
It would be nice to see ConTeXt used by more people, but I am concerned
that if it becomes as readily available as plain tex then people will
assume that it has a similar license, and as a result, violate the license
unintentionally. This implies extra workload for TeX gurus who will then
have to explain to these users that they have to purchase table.tex and
Lucida fonts in order to compile a document that they brought with them
from their previous school or obtained from a colleague.
--
George White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Halifax, Nova Scotia
