> And note that it begins with "I decided to put these fonts into the > public domain; all I have asked is that ..."
As has been stated many times, the conditions on Knuth's programs and fonts are scattered over many places, the copyright pages in books, and comments in source code and readme files in the distributions. The wording (especially the use of "public domain") is often confusing and arguably contradictory. However the _intent_ of the TeX conditions is clear (and stated in all caps in the text I quoted); Change whatever you like, so long as you change your name (including names of relevant files). This is the basis of the claim we have often stated (and you've often denied) that the design of the LPPL was primarily intended to clarify a situation in which latex could be distributed in the same manner as TeX, but with clearer conditions, all stated in one place. I think the LPPL succeeded in that. It is precisely because the conditions on latex are so much easier to find than the conditions on TeX that we (as opposed to Knuth) get the initial comments about the renaming clause. > Note that if this means *anything* at all, the request is a mere > request and not legally binding. It is not phrased as a request it is stated that this is the intended interpretation of the licence by the copyright holder. (Yes I know he also mentions PD in the same statement...) "in direct violation of my stipulation on the copyright page of Computers & Typesetting, Volume E." We do have a clear statement that Debian wouldn't try to use legal technicalities to weasel out of honouring such a statement, don't we? David _____________________________________________________________________ This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service.
