Re: Knuth statement on renaming cm files and Licence violation.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Bear in mind, Russ, nobody is questioning whether TeX (or LaTeX) are
*good* software, or *useful* software, or even *open source* software.
The question is whether they are free software. A restricted API,
which you call a protected API, is not a free API.
Even if LaTeX is found by the Debian Project to be non-free, many
Debian users will continue using it. There'll probably be an attempt
at a fork from the last known free license, or a pre-translation of
the API to avoid the need for further work by end-users, and the
results may someday end up as Debian packages.
As has been said here before, the right way to resolve this appears to
involve contacting the potential copyright holder, Knuth. It wouldn't
be unreasonable to include a bit of background on the current
discussion, a copy of the DFSG, and a short series of questions as to
whether TeX, MF, and CM are in the public domain or copyrighted, and
if the latter, what are the licenses.
- -Brian
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE9ds2i03mlJHngJfERAkOGAJ9ztmFjUS3rkfpxvnCOoTIpRTnbIQCePuzB
G/iG0T/4Sj8DKs1+yWbFasA=
=Adsv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: