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

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

On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 06:26:30PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
> > > So the package name gets changed, and a couple lines gets added to the
> > > description. Boo hoo. Trivial and irrelevant.
> > 
> > Which has been done, already, no? s/tex/tetex/.
> Glenn, to say the truth, I am appaled by the low signal/noise ratio on
> the group. This question was already discussed here and answered by
> David Carlisle. Why do I need to repeat?

He said "the package name gets changed".  The package name is "tetex",
not "tex", so that's been done.  ("Package name" has a very specific
meaning in Debian, and there is no "tex" package in Debian.)  The
biggest change the description would need is s/TeX distribution/TeX-like

You're claiming packaging the TeX software is in violation of the TeX
trademark, and you present this as if it's a showstopper for his suggestion,
when it's clear that the most you would have to do is a little work with

> Ok, I am patient. The tetex-* packages distributed by Debian are NOT
> "free TeX-like systems". Instead, they are sets of integrated
> typesetting tools, including:

So the package itself is not TeX, and does not need renaming.

> Do you need me to repeat this slowly?

Okay, I'll be direct.

Fix your attitude and adjust your tone.  My tolerance for condescension
and offensiveness has its limit.

Everyone else on this list, despite differences of opinion, miscommunication
and frustration, is being civil to one another, even if it takes
conscious effort.  Please follow suit.

Glenn Maynard

Reply to: