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

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

Boris Veytsman <borisv@lk.net> writes:

> It is all very interesting, but I am afraid it is outside of my
> scope. 

As you've said several times, and proved quite well, you're ignorant
about the issues.  Please, therefore, stop muddling the discussion.

> If you want to keep the notion that TeX is wonderfully free and
> the TeX community is misguided, while you are the fountian of
> knowledge, it is fine with me. If you wish, I agree that you used
> LaTeX before Lamport, or that you are Napoleon and King of Persia
> simultaneously. Surely, why not?

Since I have not claimed any of those arrogant things, please stop
turding up this mailing list with your FUD.

> The trademark of the American Mathematical Society.

That's not a license.  Can you please post the relevant parts of the

> Thomas, there was a clear experiment showing that you are not
> right. In 1996 Slackware packaged NTeX with changed cmr* files. Note
> that NTeX people *did* publicise the fact that their fonts are not
> Knuthian; they used this as an argument for their distro ("New and
> improved fonts based on the Professor Knuth set" was their
> line). Knuth publicly accused them that they violated his rights (I do
> not remember whether he mentioned copyright, trademark or both, and
> this page is no longer avialable on the Web). There was no court
> case; rather Slackware chose to switch to teTeX. I never had heard of
> NTeX thereafter. 

The CM fonts prohibit *all* modification--whether with changed names
or not--AFAICT.  That makes them completely nonfree.  It has nothing
to do with TeX, but with the CM fonts license.

Reply to: