Re: TeX Licenses & teTeX (Was: Re: forwarded message from Jeff Licquia)
Boris Veytsman <borisv@lk.net> writes:
> You see, I find this clause in a precedent. EC fonts are exactly this
> -- a derivative of CM fonts under other names. The "community" that
> accepted them *includes* a guy named Donald Knuth. You want the right
> to interpret DFSG; don't you think Knuth deserves the right ot have a
> say in interpretation of his license?
Of course. But he must actually pick on interpretation and stick with
it. Moreover, when he says "what I want to get", that is not some
kind of extension of the license. There are many things I want that I
don't put in my licenses, and that is clearly the case with Knuth as
well.
> Thomas, I stipulate you used LaTeX before Frank Mittelbach did. I
> stipulate even that you probably used TeX before Knuth. However, do
> you know that there are several things called "TeX"? Besides the
> executable /usr/bin/tex there is a format called TeX, represented by
> the file tex.fmt (or plain.fmt) generated from plain.tex. This file
> you cannot even patch under the license. And generation of the format
> *requires* CM fonts. So yes, CM fonts ARE parts of TeX The Format
> *just check /usr/share/texmf/web2c/tex.log). The TeXBook describes
> both the executable and the format, so CM are parts of the work called
> TeX.
No, that doesn't make the CM fonts part of TeX. If I get tex.web, I
don't necessarily get the CM fonts, and moreover, I can use plain.tex
without the CM fonts at all!
Thomas
Reply to: