Re: Knuth statement on renaming cm files and Licence violation.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
>>>>> On Wed, 4 Sep 2002 09:36:31 +0100, David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk> said:
>> 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...)
The reference to enforcement by shunning and community effort seems to
indicate otherwise. I've been trying to read that statement from
every angle I can think of, but I just can't find a consistent meaning
other than that Knuth has put this in the public domain, but makes strong
requests of the community of users of the code he wrote.
> "in direct violation of my stipulation on the copyright page of Computers
> & Typesetting, Volume E."
Sadly, I don't own a copy of Computers & Typesetting. Can you quote
the full copyright page, and give a general indication of the contents
of 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?
Certainly. If anything is to be weaseled, I suspect it will be the
DFSG: it's enough to have legal permission to distribute modified code
(say, because it's public domain) that we don't think we'll likely
ever exercise (out of politeness and respect).
- -Brian
- --
Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE9dh9/03mlJHngJfERApkWAJ9adMXakOuYcnOeFE9xFDgrPlaUdACfT0X7
FZNshUGGbAsfWxsBc0PR1jc=
=SWQ7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: