On 19.02.2003 17:56:27 Victor Mote wrote:
> Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> > > I found a generic TeX distribution that came with my Red Hat
> > (the relevant
> > > files are installed into /usr/share/texmf/tex/generic/hyphen). I /think/
> > > these are standard "generic" TeX files, which would be subject
> > to Knuth's
> > > license, which IMO is Apache-compatible. It seems like the best
> > approach is
> > > to start with these, & let contributors modify them as necessary. They
> > > contain "do not change" caveats from Knuth, but after reading
> > his various
> > > papers on the subject, IMO, the purpose of this is to maintain TeX
> > > compatibility among diverse systems. People are free to take
> > his work as a
> > > starting place, but you cannot use the name "TeX".
> >
> > I've tried to locate the sources you mentioned on the net, but haven't
> > succeeded. Can you give us a URL?
> I don't know where they are on the net, but I'll be happy to email them to
> you. Or, if you have a Red Hat distribution, you might be able to find them
> there.

Would you email them to me? Thanks!

> > > Also, if we build our own, we should credit Knuth & TeX, but
> > also explicitly
> > > reference the Apache license in the files, so that contributors
> > know they
> > > are contributing under that license.
> >
> > Well, that depends on the licence. We cannot just simply credit Knuth &
> > TeX and apply the Apache licence. Jörg's analysis of the situation is
> > pretty accurate IMO. This is a non-trivial matter.
> Maybe I missed something in Joerg's analysis, or maybe I forgot to summarize
> the Knuth/TeX license. Essentially, it is this: "Use this software for
> anything that you wish, but don't modify it and call it TeX". In other
> words, Knuth retains control over TeX, but has no objection to anyone taking
> that code & starting another project with it -- he just doesn't want any
> confusion over what is TeX. I agree that it is a non-trivial matter, and
> that we need to respect everyone's rights, so if I have misunderstood
> something, please set me straight. Otherwise, I think we really can simply
> apply the Apache license to that work. The credits are simple courtesy. I
> just think it is better to start with something that works, even if
> incomplete, and have contributors add to it to make it complete, than to try
> to mess with the other licenses.

It's ok. I thought there would be more than this single sentence
attached to the sources. I just wanted to check on the original licence.
You could be right about apply the Apache licence. Does everbody agree
in this case?

Jeremias Maerki

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to