> Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 22:59:13 +0100
> From: David Carlisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> if that were the case you would presumably remove TeX and the TeX
> fonts from Debian as well. In that case the licence on LaTeX would
> be moot as without TeX you can't use LaTeX whatever the licence.
Greetings:
I apologize for butting in in the ongoing discussion. Moreover, I am
neither a lawyer nor a LaTeX3 team member (a couple of my programs are
in the distribution, both under GPL and LPPL). Nevertheless I hope
that my thoughts might be of use.
I am a Debian and LaTeX user, so the present
> Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 19:18:02 -0500
> From: Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I don't think anyone here has a problem with a license that says "If
> your LaTeX doesn't pass such and such a validation suite, you can't
> call it LaTeX, but you can do whatever else you want to do with it."
>
> Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 17:28:10 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Now you seem to be saying that there are so many ways to modify Latex
> that I would never need to change article.cls. What if article.cls is
> itself broken? Why can't I fix it and distribute that fix?
>
> Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 03:41:42 +0300
> From: Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 07:52:09PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> >B. The *name* TeX is reserved for Knuth's program. If you program
> >is called TeX, it must sa
> Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 22:46:53 -0500
> From: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> You seem at least as ignorant of Linux kernel development as you accuse
> Debian developers of being with respect to TeX.
>
I am afraid the ignorance is truly mutual.
I was amused by the suggestion that a L
> Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 22:48:28 -0500
> From: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 09:23:14PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> > TeX people are from a different culture. TeX is not going to evolve.
> > It is frozen. As Knuth said, "These
> From: Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 16 Jul 2002 23:08:59 -0500
>
> The King James Bible is in the public domain, so we are allowed to
> modify it all we want.
>
Except in Great Britain, where it is copyrighted by the crown
--
Good luck
-Boris
"Nominal fee". What an ugly senten
> From: Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 17 Jul 2002 02:02:25 -0500
>
> One possible important difference: there is, I would imagine, a much
> higher degree of consensus about the Debian Social Contract and DFSG
> within Debian than I expect there is in the LaTeX user community over
> li
> Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 07:42:23 -0500
> From: John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > By the way I hope Debian developers do NOT reserve the right to change
> > King James Version?
>
> How do you think the world got the Revised Standard Version? The importance
> of the ability to copy and mo
I apologize for being so prolific writer on this list. Still, I'd like
to clear an important point.
When we talked about LaTeX being both a program and a language
standard, some Debian people told us that this situation is the same
as with Perl, Python, Ruby etc. I think there is a big difference
> Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 11:47:37 -0500
> From: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 10:27:55AM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> > However, I agree with David Carlisle, that this discussion is
> > moot. The present LPPL conforms to the present D
> Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 12:36:46 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> In order to be free, it must allow exactly what LPPL seems designed to
> prevent. A Debian user can take LaTeX, make it behave differently than
> the original, (including producing different output), and dist
> From: Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 17 Jul 2002 15:26:25 -0500
>
> > Absolutely nothing in the currently used LPPL prevents you from
> > creating your version of LaTeX, call it latex-improved, and invoke it
> > by a command
> >
> > latex-improved file.foo
>
> Absolutely nothing in
> Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 21:55:42 +0100
> From: Timothy Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> (1) The intersection of those interested in LaTeX
> and those seriously interested in Debian is almost empty, I imagine.
> I would have said it was empty,
> except that Frank Mittelbach seems to belong to both
> Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 16:25:26 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> If these were the only restrictions (change contact info and change
> the name of the *program*, not the individual files), then we wouldn't
> be having this argument.
I am afraid you do not understand
> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 03:33:57 +0200
> From: Peter Palfrader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, 17 Jul 2002, Boris Veytsman wrote:
>
> > Note that you do not need to this if you want to change latex
> > behavior. Continuing the analogy, you do have an analog of LD_P
> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 04:15:20 -0400
> From: Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> If the core can be changed in any way without changing it directly,
> then you can break output exactly as well by this mechanism as you
> could by editing it directly.
>
No, because to change the core you nee
> From: Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 06:20:32 -0400
>
> The TeX license is OK because it mandates what we call the program,
> but does not say anything about the API. Even if the binary is called
> uglytex, it's still easy for me to run it over .tex files. If those
>
> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 09:43:15 -0400
> From: Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I have always appreciated the fact that you could run latex on 10
> year-old sources and get the same output, but I have also come to
> appreciate the rights granted by DFSG-compliant software.
>
I think
> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 14:12:44 -0400
> From: Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 12:55:43PM +0200, Javier Bezos wrote:
> > >> but the documents created using that distribution. If I get a
> > >> document by "John Smith" (somehow), how can I see if _his_
> > >> system
> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 20:16:43 +0200
> From: "Bernhard R. Link" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I think noone wants to change the (La)TeX-Kernel, noone want do make
> .tex-file iterchange impossible. We all want the LaTeX to be the
> usefull crossplattform tool that it is.
>
> But though we do not wa
> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 13:21:09 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > R2. Change the appearance of all documents by (1) using instead of the
> > command "latex file" a command "modified-latex file" or (2)
> > passing the corresponding options to tex or (3) using my own
> From: Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 18 Jul 2002 18:30:19 -0500
>
> No, not at all. I think that your R3 right is the point of contention;
> we do not believe that the draft of the LPPL we've seen confers that
> right.
This is exactly the reason of this discussion.
I hope that th
> Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 14:45:35 +1200
> From: Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Under the LPPL we are not allowed to fix the engine either; we have to wait
> for D. E. Knuth to do it. Which I'm sure he would do, unless he happened
> to have been run over by a bus that morning (unlikely, as
> Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 16:38:03 -0400
> From: Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> LaTeX. Actually, there ARE non-TeX programs that use LaTeX as macro
> packages. The most popular among such programs is pdftex. I use pdftex
> almost as often as tex. When pdftex is called
> Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 01:24:24 -0500
> From: Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> How does the LPPL actually prevent a distributor from FUBARing their
> distribution of LaTeX? The fact is people regularly ignore licenses,
> copyrights, patents and trademarks (if this weren't the case, there
> Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 12:19:07 -0500
> From: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> 1) Names and titles are not copyrightable. If you want intellectual
> property protection in a name, you need a trade mark, service mark,
> certification mark, or similar instrument.
>
I afraid this is not
> Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 02:07:05 +0200
> From: Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> 5) -- that's a little tricky with that file as it is a boot-trapping TeX file
> in essentially every other tex/latex file the identification stuff is on
> top but when a kernel is made Tex starts
> From: Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 20 Jul 2002 20:15:30 +0200
>
> > - to fork you have to rename every package under LPPL
>
> > all of them wrong (and explained over and over again by now)
>
> It has been *asserted* over and over again that this is wrong, but
> that assertati
> From: Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 20 Jul 2002 23:32:48 +0200
>
> I still think it can be viewed as excessive. Let me explain.
>
> Imagine that I want to create a typesetting system that behaves just
> like LaTeX on all input files, except that input files that say
> something
> Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 13:30:47 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Note that in the above, `distribution' of a file means making the file
> > available to others by any means. This includes, for instance,
> > installing the file on any machine in such a way that the file
> Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 14:32:39 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Suppose I take a GPL'ed program, change it and put the closed version
> > (sans sources) on my own machine. I did not violate GPL yet. Now
> > suppose that I make the drive NFS-exportable and encourage my pa
> From: Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 21 Jul 2002 18:07:50 -0500
>
> On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 16:49, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> > This is the root of our disagreement. I think that a sysadmin that put
> > a changed copy of latex.fmt in the $TEXFORMATS directo
> From: Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 21 Jul 2002 20:34:32 -0500
> You're right, and there may be software you can't install on your AFS
> drive in this instance, because you're "distributing" software to those
> thousand computers. This is irrespective of whether any of those
> thousa
> From: Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 21 Jul 2002 22:59:26 -0500
>
> It's crucial to your point, therefore, that there not be a distinction
> between running the program from /usr/local/bin or /afs/whatever/bin. I
> think we've shown that this isn't the case, since a sysadmin does not
> Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 16:35:42 +1200
> From: Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Take my company. There are 4 of us working there. I'm quite likely to want
> to make a small modification to some part of LaTeX to make it behave how I
> want it to. It's been a long time since I used LaTeX heav
> From: Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 22 Jul 2002 00:23:22 -0500
>
> On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 23:43, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> > > From: Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > >
> > > Take my company. There are 4 of us work
> From: Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 22 Jul 2002 00:47:39 -0500
>
> On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 23:10, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> > Exactly. I really do not see the difference between running a program
> > from /usr/local/bin or /afs/whatever/bin/. What is the
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> Date: 22 Jul 2002 02:27:04 -0700
>
> David Carlisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 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
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> Date: 22 Jul 2002 02:28:38 -0700
>
> I think that ultimately it is the University and its users who are
> best place to make that decision, and not the LaTeX mafia.
>
I think that LaTeX users community is pretty happy with the way the
things a
> Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 21:31:54 +0200
> From: Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> To go forward I propose
>
> A) I would like you to come to a conclusion on (1) assuming the above Axiom
>
The question is, who should say "yes" and "no"? Sorry for being
ignorant about the rules -- but i
> From: Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 22 Jul 2002 15:02:28 -0500
>
>
> Would it really contradict your professed goals to have three
> LaTeX-alike systems floating around, one named LaTeX, one named FooTeX,
> and one named BarTeX?
>
Of course not. Actually there are several systems
> From: Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 23 Jul 2002 10:31:57 -0500
>
> Would it work for you to require the following?
>
> - if the whole is named "LaTeX", every changed file must be renamed
>
> - if the whole is named something else, files may be changed without
> renaming
>
What
> Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 20:31:13 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 21:17, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
> > > The question here is how to guarantee that a changed overcite.sty
> > > (without renaming) will not be used with pristine LaTeX, right?
>
> This
> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 12:56:19 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> So let me get this straight. Pristine LaTeX would have, within it, a
> mechanism for checking whether a particular file is "blessed" by the
> LaTeX project. Ideally, it could check digital signatures. m
> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 22:53:23 +0200
> From: Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> So it is NOT me or David or anybody else from The LaTeX Team that controls an
> this: the terms of LPPL control it as any work under LPPL will be on a LaTeX
> system (but not on a fork on) load the sameset of
> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 13:20:52 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> > Perhaps because LaTeX people want to give other people (basically
> > themselves) a couple of other rights, namely:
>
> &g
> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 14:58:13 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I hate to disappoint you, but this is much more work than you think.
> >
> > LaTeX is not a Linux project. It i
> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 16:42:34 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> No, it's true of C as well. We wouldn't accept a Perl, for instance, that
> forbade incompatible changes to the API, even if it allowed addition of
> keywords. It really is the case that we want to preserv
> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 16:42:34 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> No, it's true of C as well. We wouldn't accept a Perl, for instance, that
> forbade incompatible changes to the API, even if it allowed addition of
> keywords. It really is the case that we want to preserv
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> Date: 24 Jul 2002 22:44:16 -0700
>
> See, we have a different model of evolution--one much much much longer
> term.
>
> Our model is one that should not rely on any assumption that
> *anything* will be static, because of a desire to think *long*
> From: Brian Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 11:34:50 -0400
>
> I'd like to suggest a licensing variant for LaTeX which uses a
> weakened form of the API restrictions discussed earlier. In its
> simplest form, this requires distribution of two versions of LaTeX.
> One is un
> From: Brian Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 13:39:49 -0400
>
> > 1. Your proposition should include not only LaTeX but also TeX since
> >its licensing terms are essentially the same.
>
> The terms of the copy of TeX on my computer appear to be rather
> different: it's
> From: Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 25 Jul 2002 23:36:22 +0200
>
> I can't imagine that it would be acceptable for the LaTeX people that
> a change in the LaTeX *kernel* would make it legal to hack in another
> file that, from their point of wiev, is part of an entirely
> differe
> From: Brian Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 17:52:16 -0400
>
> > 2. You can do whatever you want with TeX code as long as it is not
> >called TeX.
>
> Yes. But it requires renaming the *work*, not each individual file.
> Some of the files, of course, carry more string
> Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 10:01:40 +0200
> From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Martin_Schr=F6der?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On 2002-07-25 16:46:57 -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Um, no. In the case where package FOO needs package BAR,
> > \NeedsTeXFormat has BAR tell FOO that BAR is a good version. Using
>
> I
> From: Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 26 Jul 2002 12:20:43 +0200
>
> Erm .. the *current* LPPL you say, being LPPL version 1.2? I cannot
> find any language in there that allows naming outside of the LaTeX
> search path. There seems to be no exceptions to condition (3) about
> not d
> From: Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 26 Jul 2002 13:15:44 +0200
>
> Scripsit Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > If you create non-LaTeX, you can move files outside the tree, and
> > then you are completely free to do whatever you wa
> Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 19:07:06 +0100
> From: David Carlisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> If you make a program that isn't called tex, are you saying you can edit
> plain.tex and call the modified file plain.tex without being in
> contravention of the comment at the top of plain.tex which says
>
>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> Date: 27 Jul 2002 09:50:54 -0700
>
> If a site wants a variant of latex, and all the users at that site
> know about it, and want it, and want it to be called latex, then why,
> exactly, do you want to prohibit them this freedom? (Or want to
>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> Date: 27 Jul 2002 10:00:12 -0700
>
> However, more to the point, free software is about particular
> freedoms. In the instant case, the freedom I'm asking about is a
> freedom to modify and distribute the program, something that both the
> DFSG
> Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 23:20:51 +0200
> From: Lars =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hellstr=F6m?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> What license should I use if I want to make a _font_ free software?
>
> Originally I was thinking about the GPL, but then it occurred to me that
> this could have unwanted contamination eff
> Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 01:54:02 -0500
> From: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> These statements are in tension. If Professor Knuth asserts the latter,
> he logically *cannot* be asserting the former.
>
> Knuth is asserting his copyright to impose the restrictions described
> above; the
> Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 11:05:28 -0500
> From: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> You have an unhealthy obsession with filenames. A filename is no more
Who is trying to be offensive now? Branden, cannot we make this a
civil discussion, even given the fact we disagree? Believe me, I've
led en
> Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 19:52:28 +0200
> From: Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> that remark with the historical context is not clear to me as the
> names for the collective works have been trademarked (Computer
> Modern not i think)
http://www.yandy.com/cm.htm says:
(TM) Computer Moder
> Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 14:07:45 -0500
> From: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> It is *human* confusion that Knuth has sought to avoid, not confusion on
> the part of computers. Strictly speaking, computers don't get confused.
> They do what they're told, or throw an exception.
>
[...]
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> Date: 05 Aug 2002 13:01:07 -0700
>
> Now, you treat this is as if there are merely differing
> interpretations of DFSG-4. But there are not. The only interpretors
> of DFSG-4 are the Debian Project. Nobody else. We don't make any
> kind of pr
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> Date: 05 Aug 2002 13:45:17 -0700
>
> You can't change tex.web, but you can do *anything* you like to it, as
> long as you do so via patch files. And in Knuth's wacked out language
> (WEB), he even has a decent automatic patch file mechanism *bui
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> Date: 05 Aug 2002 21:41:27 -0700
>
> But can I modify the behavior of any part of LaTeX, including what
> happens when I load article.sty?
>
Can you modify plain.tex?
> And am I allowed to do that by taking the original article.sty and
> using
> Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 08:08:52 -0600 (MDT)
> From: "Joe Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> >
> > But can I modify the behavior of any part of LaTeX, including what
> > happens when I load article.sty?
>
> Yes. But in order to do so, you either have to:
> 1) request
> Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 21:41:45 -0500
> From: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Well, as you noted, the TM (trademark) isn't Knuth's. The trademarks
> belong to the AMS and Addison-Wesley. (Though I would hope they have
> taken the time to consult with Knuth so as to not enforce the tra
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> Date: 05 Aug 2002 19:46:09 -0700
>
> You cannot modify tex.web at all, but you are free to patch it with
> what you want and distribute the results, including binaries made from
> it. This is exactly the sort of thing that DFSG 4 had in mind,
>
> Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 23:09:17 +0100
> From: Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Since it is almost certainly not possible to trademark a filename
> anyway, the solution seems fairly clear. We find a free font to
> replace this one with, and we drop it in place as cmr10.mf, excising
> the o
> Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 21:16:08 -0500
> From: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Are you asking Debian to regard the following license as DFSG-free?
>
> Copyright 1996-2002 Software in the Public Interest, Inc.
>
> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person
>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> Date: 06 Aug 2002 13:54:08 -0700
> > Can you modify plain.tex?
>
> Yes, if I do so by patches. I can do the following:
>
> Rename plain.tex to origplain.tex.
>
> Create a new plain.tex that loads origplain.tex and then hacks the
> environment
> Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 22:40:14 +0100
> From: Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >=20
> > I am afraid you cannot do this: since TeX is trademarked, you cannot
> > substitute a new font for it without violating trademark.=20
>
> So the package name gets changed, and a couple lines gets added t
> Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 17:43:37 -0400
> From: Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 10:40:14PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > So the package name gets changed, and a couple lines gets added to the
> > description. Boo hoo. Trivial and irrelevant.
>
> Which has been don
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> Date: 07 Aug 2002 15:34:43 -0700
> Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > TeX and LaTeX are not just great programs. They are also document
> > exchange programs. I need to know that TeX on my installa
> Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 18:50:32 -0400
> From: Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> He said "the package name gets changed". The package name is "tetex",
> not "tex", so that's been done. ("Package name" has a very specific
> meaning in Debian, and there is no "tex" package in Debian.) The
>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> Date: 07 Aug 2002 17:41:44 -0700
>
> Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > We already discussed this. Because this is the goal of TeX. That is
> > why TeX uses scaled point for calculations. Th
> Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 00:55:52 -0400
> From: Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > I am not a lawyer, so I cannot claim understanding of intricacies of
> > licenses. However, I think I understand Knuth's lucid writings about
> > his intentions with respect to TeX. He many times said that he want
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> Date: 07 Aug 2002 22:48:36 -0700
>
> Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Now it seems that Thomas does not agree with this understanding and
> > says that I do not interpret DFSG correctly. It m
> Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 02:05:04 -0400
> From: Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > > Completely new systems based on TeX code? Huh?
> >
> > Glenn, if you do not know about such systems, this does not mean that
> > they do not exist, right?
>
> Boris, if it's based on TeX code, it's not a
> Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 20:26:26 +0200
> From: "Bernhard R. Link" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I will try to describe some worst-case scenario, to describe, what
> it is
[the scenario is omitted].
You would be surprised, but this scenario is *not* imaginary. Actually
this is what really happened t
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> Date: 08 Aug 2002 12:19:03 -0700
> > accepted them *includes* a guy named Donald Knuth. You want the right
> > to interpret DFSG; don't you think Knuth deserves the right ot have a
> > say in interpretation of his license?
>
> Of course. But he
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> Date: 08 Aug 2002 12:52:47 -0700
> No. I want to say:
>
> Knuth wanted to make TeX free, and he did. And the LaTeX people want
> a *different* license from the TeX license--indeed, they want one that
> is quite possibly non-free.
>
> Because t
> Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 21:58:40 +0200
> From: "Bernhard R. Link" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> A lunatic author can make it impossible to get a stable system, most
> of the time even changes will not help to get a system which is also
> feasable to be used with interchanged documents from and to new a
> Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 16:21:10 -0400
> From: Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> My goodness! Here's where all our experiences with dynamic
> libraries pay off.
Do you remember how glibc team broke the compatibility between MINOR
versions? It was a jolly sight
>
> For the love of
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> Date: 08 Aug 2002 14:01:29 -0700
>
> The CM fonts prohibit *all* modification--whether with changed names
> or not--AFAICT. That makes them completely nonfree. It has nothing
> to do with TeX, but with the CM fonts license.
>
This statement i
> Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 17:22:14 -0400
> From: Alan Shutko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I doubt it's that. I think it more likely that Thomas is arguing
> against your insistence that TeX be removed wholly from Debian by
> explaining his interpretation of the issues. In his interpretation,
> TeX is
> Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 18:20:12 -0500
> From: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> It's obvious to me that Boris wants TeX martyred at the hands of the
> DFSG, presumably so he can editorialize on how Debian has lost its way
> from the "true freedom" that is represented by TeX.
>
I am sor
> Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 16:15:01 +0200
> From: Frank Mittelbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Frank, thanks for a very lucid and thoughtful comment. It is very
helpful.
I must say, however, that I somewhat disagree with one of your points,
namely:
>
> Thus our point is that building a distribution consi
First, three quotations:
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> Date: 09 Aug 2002 19:01:06 -0700
>
> This is a massively inconsistent sentence. But there is one and only
> one way to make it consistent. The files are in the public
> domain--fully, completely--and the rest of the s
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> Date: 09 Aug 2002 19:07:26 -0700
>
> In fact, everyone does, in fact, modify TeX before installing it.
> Nobody, in fact, installs an unmodified TeX. This is a central fact
> massively ignored by so many that I have to say it in each post,
> ra
> Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 14:54:19 +0300
> From: Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Are you talking about a compilation copyright here? Those are tricky
> beasts. I've never before seen a compilation copyright with a license
> that allows modification, and I wonder how it would work.
>
> Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 16:35:50 -0400
> From: Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> That is silly. You can definitely modify the behaviour of the C
> compiler through the C preprocessor. You can do it in C++ with
> templates. Perl allows you to fiddle with its symbol table (typeglobs)
> so th
> Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 18:53:58 -0400
> From: Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Would you consider libfoo-dev.deb to be free?
>
> Is this not what proprietary library vendors sell? They sell
> shrink-wrapped libraries, with copyrighted headers that you may use but
> must not modify. Th
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> Date: 16 Dec 2002 22:08:07 -0800
>
> I'm uncertain how gnuplot got its name...anyone know?
>
http://www.gnuplot.info/faq/
1.2 How did it come about and why is it called gnuplot?
The authors of gnuplot are: Thomas Williams, Colin Kell
Sorry for replying to myself, but the following from the FAQ:
>
> Gnuplot is freeware in the sense that you don't have to pay for
> it. However it is not freeware in the sense that you would be
> allowed to distribute a modified version of your gnuplot
> freely. Please read and ac
100 matches
Mail list logo