Jeremias Maerki wrote: > And then there's the files from the original TeX distribution by Donald > Knuth which are assumed to be in the public domain but with certain > restrictions (modified file shall not contain the same filename as the > original). Problem there is that there is not really something you could > call a license associated with the distribution, at least non that I > could find. This is all more or less based on "common knowledge", rather > than hard facts on file.
Here are some excerpts from Chapter 30, "The Future of TeX and METAFONT" from Knuth's "Digital Typography", 1999, Center for the Study of Language and Information, ISBN 1-57589-010-4: <---Start---> My work on developing TeX, METAFONT, and Computer Modern has come to an end. I will make no further changes except to correct extremely serious bugs. I have put these systems into the public domain so that people everywhere can use the ideas freely if they wish.... As stated on the copyright pages of Volumes B, D, and E, [referring here to the 5-volume "Computers and Typesetting" series] anybody can make use of my programs in whatever way they wish, as long as they do not use the names TeX, METAFONT, or Computer Modern. In particular, any person or group who wants to produce a program superior to mine is free to do so. However, nobody is allowed to call a system TeX or METAFONT unless that system conforms 100% to my own programs, as I have specified in the manuals for the TRIP and TRAP tests.... Of course I do not claim to have found the best solution to every problem. I simply claim that it is a great advantage to have a fixed point as a building block.... I welcome continued research that will lead to alternative systems that can typeset documents better than TeX is able to do. But the authors of such systems must think of another name.... <---End---> BTW, nothing in the excised portions of the above are contradictory, only explanatory. The copyright page for Volume B of "Computers and Typesetting", which volume is entitled "TeX: The Program" says the following: "The program for TeX is in the public domain, and readers my freely incorporate the algorithms of this book into their own programs. However, use of the name 'TeX' is restricted to software systems that agree exactly with the program presented here." Now, I suppose that an argument could be made that the hyphenation patterns are not part of the algorithm, but I think an equally good argument can be made that they are. They are certainly part of the TeX distribution, and Knuth's license documented above extends to the "frozen" version of TeX. If the name is TeX, and the files are a part of it, Knuth's license applies. I appreciate the concern for IP rights, and the desire to be conservative on such matters. I am extremely conservative about such things myself, having made my living off of such rights for years. I just don't know what Knuth could have done to be more clear that these files are in the public domain. I suppose a file in the distribution would have been nice, but ... Actually, there might be one, but I haven't been able to find it either. I think the correct solution here is to install the TeX (not LaTeX) hyphenation pattern files, credit Knuth, make a comment that Knuth's files are in the public domain, add the Apache License (to apply to any additions), and turn our users loose looking for things that might need to be added. A post to the user mailing list and a release note (saying that the hyphenation files are different, and perhaps less comprehensive) would be good also. BTW, I don't see a restriction on the /file/ names being the same, only on the product itself being the same. I apologize that some of the above is redundant from previous postings. I did not cite the authorities previously, and perhaps that will help us get moving here again. Victor Mote --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
