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

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

> Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 17:22:14 -0400
> From: Alan Shutko <ats@acm.org>

> I doubt it's that.  I think it more likely that Thomas is arguing
> against your insistence that TeX be removed wholly from Debian by
> explaining his interpretation of the issues.  In his interpretation,
> TeX is DSFG-free, and in yours, it's apparently not, so it seems to
> me that you're trying to get TeX removed from Debian.  (Why, I'm not
> sure.)

No, I'm afraid you misunderstand me. My position is that both TeX and
LaTeX are DSFG-free, if we interpret DFSG-4 in the consistent way.

Now there are people who do not like DFSG-4. Frank was told when he
submitted the first draft of LPPL "Act as if there is no DFSG-4,
because we do not like it anyway". They want to interpret DFSG-4 in
such a way that it does not cover anything. Then they need to paint
the people who use this clause as misguided, confused or
malicious. While they can do this with LaTeX crowd, it would be
diffcult to show DEK in this light. So they try to prove that TeX "is
different", and there is a good Knuth and Big Bad LaTeX wolf. I think
this is not intellectually honest. 

Good luck


Do you know, I think that Dr. Swift was silly to laugh about Laputa.  I
believe it is a mistake to make a mock of people, just because they think.
There are ninety thousand people in this world who do not think, for every
one who does, and these people hate the thinkers like poison.  Even if some
thinkers are fanciful, it is wrong to make fun of them for it.  Better to
think about cucumbers even, than not to think at all.
		-- T.H. White

Reply to: