This is the response I got from John Hobby wrt the two MetaPost manuals. (He also sent the sources, for an older version of LaTeX; I'll get them working with a modern LaTeX and forward both the new and old version.) Are his conditions fine, or do I need to ask for more clarification? (It seems that he gives conditions as preferences, rather than legal requirements.) [Background: we currently ship these manuals in tetex-doc, without source.] Best, Dylan Thurston ----- Forwarded message from email@example.com ----- Delivery-date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 18:04:05 -0400 Subject: Re: MetaPost manual From: firstname.lastname@example.org To: email@example.com X-Spam-Status: No, hits=6.6 required=10.0 tests=NO_REAL_NAME,THE_FOLLOWING_FORM,GAPPY_TEXT,NO_MX_FOR_FROM version=2.11 Enclosed are the sources for the Metapost manual--the sources for the other document will be sent separately. > Do you want to be more precise about the terms in which you release > them? I only want it to remain clear that I am the author of "A User's Manual for MetaPost" and "Drawing Graphs with MetaPost" and I am allowing them to be freely distributed electronically. I am not going to prohibit minor changes and corrections, but I don't want a bunch of competing versions to appear. I have authorized certain translations and I gave Alan Hoenig permission to use a few pages worth of material in his book, but I would still like to be consulted in such cases. By the way, although I seldom do so myself, it is fine with me if people want to typeset the (unofficial) MetaPost logo using all caps and Knuth's METAFONT logo font.
Description: PGP signature