Re: Knuth statement on renaming cm files and Licence violation.

[tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)]

Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes:

> Thomas Bushnell, BSG <tb@becket.net> writes:
> > David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk> writes:
> 
> >> The text of Knuth's statement appears to have been removed from all the
> >> obvious places where it was posted at the time, but I turned up a copy
> >> at this address:
> 
> > And note that it begins with "I decided to put these fonts into the
> > public domain; all I have asked is that ..."
> 
> > Note that if this means *anything* at all, the request is a mere
> > request and not legally binding.
> 
> Surely you're not arguing that makes any difference.  Surely you're not
> claiming that Debian should ignore a very reasonable request by Donald
> Knuth because you think you've found a legal loophole in his statement.
> Surely you're just saying this to make an obscure pedantic point, not to
> indicate that it should have anything whatsoever to do with what Debian
> does.

I fear that you have lost track of the context of the (rather complex)
discussion.

Debian basically just distributes tetex with no significant
modifications.  The issue is not at all about what Debian will do.

The issue is that Debian needs to be sure that our users have certain
freedoms, even if we think it would be foolish to exercise them, and
even if we have no intention of exercising them ourselves.