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

Re: Knuth statement on renaming cm files and Licence violation.

David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk> writes:

> 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).

The name of, exactly, what?  That's the problem.

Knuth maddeningly doesn't bother distinguishing between legal
requirements and earnest encouragements.  The FSF thinks you should
only run GNU Emacs on a free operating system, but it certainly
doesn't make this a legal requirement.  And that's crucial.

> 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.

TeX has *no* "renaming clause" at all, it has a totally different set
of requirements.

> 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...)

Then he must be giving his earnest encouragements, and not a license,
since the work is public domain, right?

> "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?

Debian is surely quite happy to agree with Knuth's urgent
encouragements and not just the license.

This is not about what *Debian* will do, but about what freedoms we
want to make sure our users have.

Reply to: