Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)
Branden Robinson writes:
> On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 01:34:43AM -0700, C.M. Connelly wrote:
> > I have put these systems into the public domain so that people
> > everywhere can use the ideas freely if they wish.
> [...]
> > As stated on the copyright pages of Volumes~B, D, and~E,
> > anybody can make use of my programs in whatever way they wish,
> > as long as they do not use the names \TeX, \MF, or Computer
> > Modern. In particular, any person or group who wants to produce
> > a program superior to mine is free to do so. However, nobody is
> > allowed to call a system \TeX\ or \MF\ unless that system
> > conforms 100\%\ to my own programs, as I have specified in the
> > manuals for the trip and trap tests. And nobody is allowed to
> > use the names of the Computer Modern fonts in Volume~E for any
> > fonts that do not produce identical {\tt.tfm} files. This
> > prohibition applies to all people or machines, whether
> > appointed by TUG or by any other organization. I do not intend
> > to delegate the responsibility for maintainance of \TeX, \MF,
> > or Computer Modern to anybody else, ever.
>
> These statements are in tension. If Professor Knuth asserts the latter,
> he logically *cannot* be asserting the former.
>
> Knuth is asserting his copyright to impose the restrictions described
> above; therefore TeX, METAFONT, and Computer Modern are not in the
> public domain.
I agree.
My interpretation of history here is that Don (as many others, especially in
the past) used "in the public domain" not in its legal sense but as "freely
available to the public" followed by "restricted only by the small restriction
I impose for reason X".
Even here on the list I noted that several people (which I presume to to be
debian-legal regulars) used "public domain" in different senses.
> Someday, Professor Knuth should be contacted and asked to remove the
> statement "I have put these systems into the public domain" because it
> is clearly not true.
I think that would be a very good idea.
> > I read this statement as saying that anyone can do anything they
> > want with the code in the .web files, so long as they don't call
> > the resulting systems/fonts TeX, METAFONT, or Computer Modern.
> >
> > Unless, of course, the pseudo-TeX or pseudo-METAFONT systems pass
> > the trip and trap tests, in which case they *can* be called TeX or
> > METAFONT, respectively.
> >
> > In other words, despite what it says in the individual files, I
> > think that we don't have any problems distributing TeX.
>
> I agree that the terms quoted above do not violate the DFSG.
well, the "individual files" Claire is referring to are files like cmr10.mf
which states
% THIS IS THE OFFICIAL COMPUTER MODERN SOURCE FILE cmr10.mf BY D E KNUTH.
% IT MUST NOT BE MODIFIED IN ANY WAY UNLESS THE FILE NAME IS CHANGED!
I too think that the TeX system doesn't violate the DSFG but it does come back
to accepting that it is not a violation of DSFG to require that individual
files of a work can only be distributed in changed form when their filenames
are changed.
frank
Reply to: