Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > No. You are quite wrong. Provided it still passes triptest, you can
> > call it TeX. You certainly can correct bugs or do Debian QA, provided
> > the changes still pass triptest.
>
> sorry but I fear it's you that is quite wrong. The triptest is only there to
> help you determine that your implementation is okay. you are neither allowed
> to fix bugs or add extra features (new commands, or whatever).
>From tripman.tex:
If somebody claims to have a correct implementation of \TeX, I will not
believe it until I see that \.{TRIP.TEX} is translated properly.
I propose, in fact, that a program must meet two criteria before it
can justifiably be called \TeX: (1)~The person who wrote it must be
happy with the way it works at his or her installation; and (2)~the
program must produce the correct results from \.{TRIP.TEX}.
\TeX\ is in the public domain, and its algorithms are published;
I've done this since I do not want to discourage its use by placing
proprietary restrictions on the software. However, I don't want
faulty imitations to masquerade as \TeX\ processors, since users
want \TeX\ to produce identical results on different machines.
Hence I am planning to do whatever I can to suppress any systems that
call themselves \TeX\ without meeting conditions (1) and~(2).
I have copyrighted the programs so that I have some chance to forbid
unauthorized copies; I explicitly authorize copying of correct
\TeX\ implementations, and not of incorrect ones!
Sure sounds to me that if numbers (1) and (2) have been met, it can be
called TeX.
The issue is not about bug fixes or extensions, but about whether
something is "faulty", and the test--as here carefully specified by
Knuth--is whether you are happy with how it works for you, and it must
produce the canonical output from the trip test.
Is there something that contradicts that?
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
