> Now, I realize that you don't say this in so many words. But all of the
> restrictions on filenames and the business about Current Maintainers
> make very little sense otherwise. Certainly those clauses in the
> license don't give people a sense of cooperation and trust.
>
> It might be instructive to see if that's really the feeling among people
> associated with LaTeX. If not, then perhaps you could be a little less
> paranoid about changes to LaTeX that are well-documented.
If you are really interested in the views of LaTeX users,
why not ask on comp.text.tex ?
I'm quite certain you will find that 99% of LaTeX users support Frank 100%,
and do NOT want Debian or anyone else distributing "improved" versions of
article.cls ,
even if they correct what their authors consider to be "bugs".
On a technical point, I would have thought
that any conceivable change to article.cls
could be encompassed in a package (.sty file),
and you could simply tell people that you think article class
is greatly improved if you usepackage{debianmods} or whatever.
I've used TeX and Linux since they each came out,
and I have no sense that one is "free-er" than the other.
I don't even see the distinction you make regarding Current Maintainers.
Could I distribute a modified version of Linux without Torvald's permission?
I hope not.
--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
tel: 086-233 6090
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
