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]
