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
license?
> 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: