Re: Motivations; proposed alternative license
> Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 17:28:10 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Walter Landry <email@example.com>
> 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?
You do not understand. Even if article.cls is borken, your changes
WILL work -- unless you change TeX, which you are not allowed to do.
> What I am trying to impress upon you here is that free software must
> be allowed to evolve in ways that the original author had never dreamt
> of and may not approve of. Clause 4 of the DFSG is a compromise that
I think this is the clash of philosophies. TeX people are from a
different culture. TeX is not going to evolve. It is frozen. As Knuth
said, "These fonts are never going to change again"
How sharper than a serpent's tooth is a sister's "See?"
-- Linus Van Pelt
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com