Boris Veytsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
