Re: Knuth statement on renaming cm files and Licence violation.
> And note that it begins with "I decided to put these fonts into the
> public domain; all I have asked is that ..."
As has been stated many times, the conditions on Knuth's programs and
fonts are scattered over many places, the copyright pages in books, and
comments in source code and readme files in the distributions.
The wording (especially the use of "public domain") is often confusing
and arguably contradictory.
However the _intent_ of the TeX conditions is clear (and stated in all
caps in the text I quoted); Change whatever you like, so long as you
change your name (including names of relevant files).
This is the basis of the claim we have often stated (and you've often
denied) that the design of the LPPL was primarily intended to
clarify a situation in which latex could be distributed in the same
manner as TeX, but with clearer conditions, all stated in one place.
I think the LPPL succeeded in that. It is precisely because the
conditions on latex are so much easier to find than the conditions on
TeX that we (as opposed to Knuth) get the initial comments about the
renaming clause.
> Note that if this means *anything* at all, the request is a mere
> request and not legally binding.
It is not phrased as a request it is stated that this is the intended
interpretation of the licence by the copyright holder. (Yes I know he
also mentions PD in the same statement...)
"in direct violation of my stipulation on the copyright page of Computers
& Typesetting, Volume E."
We do have a clear statement that Debian wouldn't try to use legal
technicalities to weasel out of honouring such a statement, don't we?
David
_____________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet
delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further
information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call
Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service.
Reply to: