[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)

On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 09:43:20PM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
>  > > really, what is behind all this aren't file names but works (plural), and each
>  > > of such works is supposed not to claim itself as the original (to other
>  > > related works) after it was modified, eg a font is a work and plain.tex is a
>  > > work as well as tex.web.
>  > 
>  > Are Postfix and Exim claiming to be Sendmail, by including a /usr/sbin/sendmail
>  > interface?  No; it's just a filename used for compatibility, because
>  > many programs expect it.
> I never said that a license like LPPL or a what I think the license on TeX is
> are suitable for everything, just like I don't think GPL or Artistic is.

I didn't say you did.  You seemed to say that having a filename "foo" means
you're claiming to be "foo".  I showed how this is not the case, and this
applies regardless of the license used.

> that is all fine and okay, but it also means that Branden's interpretation is
> not necessarily the only one possible _within Debian_ and the whole purpose of
> some of these discussions was to find out a common "Debian position" given a
> certain situation.

People have offered other interpretations, but Branden has made a solid
argument for his, and nobody within Debian appears to be objecting.

Glenn Maynard

Reply to: