Re: User's thoughts about LPPL
> From: Jeff Licquia <email@example.com>
> Date: 22 Jul 2002 15:02:28 -0500
> Would it really contradict your professed goals to have three
> LaTeX-alike systems floating around, one named LaTeX, one named FooTeX,
> and one named BarTeX?
Of course not. Actually there are several systems floating around
besides LaTeX: AMSTeX, plain TeX, ConTeXt to name a few. There is a
healthy competition between them; eg it seems that (AMS)LaTeX
practically killed AMSTeX. However, a document in AMSTeX will always
remain a document in AMSTeX, which is important for us.
To say the truth, it is ok to have kgcc, egcs, gcc on the same
system. The problem is, you need to decide what is *the* $CC for each
> It gets thrown around a lot in passing as a disclaimer, but there's
> really good reason for the LaTeX Project to consult a lawyer about some
> of this stuff. I understand that this costs money; OTOH, it seems to
> some of us that you aren't clear on the legal ramifications of some of
> the stuff you're doing, and a real legal opinion would do wonders to
> clear a lot of that up.
I agree with you. Unfortunately I am not a member of the LaTeX3 team,
so I cannot say what is the financial situation of the project (AFAIK,
not very good) and whether they can afford a consultation. However, it
might be a good idea to finance a lawyer consultation from TUG
funds. Or, if it is impossible, we can probably start a collection. I
pledge to contribute to such collection if it starts.
Let us treat men and women well;
Treat them as if they were real;
Perhaps they are.
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com