On Mon, 14 Jun 1999 09:13:49 -0700 (PDT), Kayvan Aghaiepour Sylvan
wrote:
>
>>> I put it in there on the (perhaps mistaken) belief that floatflt
>>> appears in most modern TeX distributions (teTeX and NTeX both have
>>> it). I guess there is now one counterexample in emTeX.
>
>IMNSHO, emTeX is "broken" when it comes to LyX and its requirements.
Eberhard Mattes has his own opinions about a good TeX distribution.
Well, emTeX has proved reliability (and speed: There is a working
version even for an i8088) for nearly twenty years of constant PC
TeXniks support now and may well be considered the dean of the TeX
distributions.
And BTW, he has a right to, as he ported gcc, gnu emacs,
gdb/pmgdb and wrote dvipm as well as the UNIX/POSIX PC extender emx
around his TeX distribution.
teTeX may be a kind of (youthful) answer to emTeX. But as it matures,
Thomas Esser seems to agree more and more with Mattes on what should be
part of a distribution and what shouldn't.
>I don't think removing floatflt from the docs is the right
>solution. Requiring emTeX users to install the required packages is
>the right solution.
>
If teTeX is currently eliminating the *you must not take bad, evil
money* licensed packages, floatflt.dtx is likely the next candidate;
cf. it's license:
You may freely distribute the
% files floatflt.dtx and floatflt.ins, provided: 1. You do not
% take money for the distribution or use of these files except
% for a nominal charge for diskettes and postage; and 2. You
% always distribute `floatflt.dtx' and `floatflt.ins' together
% at the same time.
>The following came through the teTeX mailing list. It will affect us since
>FoilTeX is one of the common default packages. I will add a note to this
>effect in the LyX docs (presumably Extended) in the next couple of days.
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 22:05:26 +0200 (MET DST)
>From: Thomas Esser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: foiltex
>
>> Why is the foiltex package removed from the TeTeX-1.0 distribution ?
>> It was still in the snapshot of early May, IIRC.
>
>I want to get to a teTeX distribution that can be distributed without
>too many restrictions. The "you must not sell this software" restriction
>of foiltex turns teTeX into a "you must not sell me" software, which is
>not what I want.
>
>I know that teTeX-1.0 does not yet meet this goal, but I am moving towards
>it. I know that it is *very* unlikely that the copyright of foiltex will
>be changes in this respect, so I decided to remove foiltex from teTeX.
>
>I worry about the status of teTeX. I want that it can be distributed
>freely.
>
>Imagine that someone makes a lawsuit against a company that distributes
>teTeX as part of their commercial product. The consequence might be that
>this and other companies stop distributing teTeX.
>
>Being able to distribute teTeX in commercial products helps the community
>in two ways:
> - provide users with softare
> - raise money for the community by the facts that
> - some companies give money "back" to the community (e.g. S.u.S.E.
> supports the XFree86 development)
> - non-profit organizations (like TUG) which support the community
> can sell the software
>
>You can put foiltex into a local texmf tree. Or, use seminar...
>
>Thomas
>
>
