I've split this off, since I don't think mixing the LaTeX and (Te)TeX
licensing problems is a good idea.
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 04:27:57PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> > I disagree. DFSG 4 was, as I understand, drafted with explicit
> > reference to the situation with TeX, which is similar in many ways.
> TeX is not similar at all (Why do people keep bringing this up?). The
> only thing you have to do is not call it TeX. You can then modify
> files in place all you want.
There seems to be a lot of confusion about TeX's licensing. tetex's
debian/copyright says it's GPL, and:
"The individual parts of this distribution often have their own
copyright. Please look into the respective files for their copyright."
(Does that mean s/copyright/license/? Either way, should the individual
licenses or copyright notices be listed in debian/copyright anyway?)
It mentions tex.web and mf.web having the filename restriction. That's
not GPL compatible, so there may be a problem there, whether or not it's
eventually deemed DFSG-free. I don't know the relationships, though.
On top of that, both of these files don't actually have the renaming
requirement; they simply say "Copying of this file is authorized only
if (1) you are D. E. Knuth, or if (2) you make absolutely no changes
to your copy." Other files also have this notice.
tex.ch has a notice about changes that isn't very specific. (It mentions
"copying correct implementations", but then says you need to rename changed
Is anybody investigating this? If Knuth has since decided to change to
a naming requirement ("don't call it TeX"), this might be fixable. If
he's changed to a filename requirement, then it's in the same boat as
Latex. Either would be better than the current text in the files.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com