On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 09:38:47AM +0100, David Carlisle wrote: > > But you have *no* way to assure this, short of trademarking the name > > "latex". > Of course it is true as written, but it ignores the fact that LPPL has > been remarkably successful in its stated aims. > 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 that passing a latex document from one site > to another was largely a matter of luck.
Err, are you sure this is largely due to the license change, and not to other changes in the Unix world? Since 1990 we've had the rise-and-rise of Linux and BSD systems which tend to include tetex as part of the core distribution, and don't need any modification. Likewise, sunfreeware.com seems to have been founded in 1993 or so, with possibly a similar effect on the Solaris types. Cheers, aj, who was still in primary school in 1990... -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''
pgp29ulSQR0qP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
