On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 12:00:58AM +0200, Lars Hellström wrote:
OK, so the patch files can be distributed, but where is the mechanism which
causes TeX to use them? Well, the DFSG doesn't say there has to be one!
Patch files must be allowed to be distributed, but there is no condition
that
I said:
A key difference is that the CM fonts source need not be installed
(tetex automatically runs METAFONT in some cases, but it could easily
be pointed at different source names).
Users use *.tfm files when running TeX, and the restrictions on *.mf
names are not restrictions on *.tfm
On Mon, 5 Aug 2002 21:22:24 +0200, Frank Mittelbach
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
no i'm saying that my understanding of his
[Donald E. Knuth's]
intentions is that he wants to
ensure that within a TeX system (ie program plus surroundings)
\font\foo=cmr10
refers to his CMR10 and
\input plain
to
At 08.38 +0200 2002-08-11, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Lars Hellström [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However concerning the CM fonts I think you're wrong, since the conditions
for these are indeed very similar to those of the LPPL; it's just the case
that the LPPL relaxes these conditions in some
On Sat, 10 Aug 2002 15:40:19 -0400, Boris Veytsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I must say, however, that your letter gave an insight to me. I've
reread DFSG-4 once more and I think I see how TeX, CM and LaTeX ARE in
fact DFSG-free.
The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in
On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 11:49:00PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
Thomas, I'd be grateful if you do not consider my reply as an
attack. It is a friendly observation. You see, I've been in your
shoes.
You know, I have been in company of great talents. Several times I had
a honor to talk to
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Date: 09 Aug 2002 19:07:26 -0700
In fact, everyone does, in fact, modify TeX before installing it.
Nobody, in fact, installs an unmodified TeX. This is a central fact
massively ignored by so many that I have to say it in each post,
rather
Boris Veytsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Now you are tempted to consider Knuth to be ignorant -- worse, to be
an evidently stupid person who does not realize he is ignorant and
pontificates about things he has no business to talk about. Well,
since it is established that Knuth is a great
Boris Veytsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, earlier you claimed that only LaTeX community is completely
confused and misguided about our licenses. Now you you seem to claim
that both TeX users and Knuth himself do not understand what he
wrote. A rather cheeky notion.
I spoke of those
On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 09:57:18PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
% THIS IS THE OFFICIAL COMPUTER MODERN SOURCE FILE cmr10.mf BY D E KNUTH.
% IT MUST NOT BE MODIFIED IN ANY WAY UNLESS THE FILE NAME IS CHANGED!
It contains the clear intent that you *can* modify the file, provided
you
On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 11:49:00PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
As I understand it, Knuth put in the public domain the *code* of TeX,
Metafont, CM fonts etc. Fragments of his code, his creative ideas and
insights are freely used in many derived works. However -- and here is
the most profound
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 14:54:19 +0300
From: Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Are you talking about a compilation copyright here? Those are tricky
beasts. I've never before seen a compilation copyright with a license
that allows modification, and I wonder how it would work.
Excuse
On Sat, Aug 10, 2002 at 03:40:19PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
However, there is a big difference between TeX programs and, say, C or
Perl programs. The innards of the C compiler or Perl interpreters are
hidden from the user program. You cannot patch your compiler or
interpreter DURING the
On Sat, Aug 10, 2002 at 06:36:56PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
Let me ask you this question. Suppose the libfoo-dev.deb package has
only include files (no compiled libs and objects). The author of the
package requires that absolutely no changes are done to the
includes. However, you have the
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 16:15:01 +0200
From: Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Frank, thanks for a very lucid and thoughtful comment. It is very
helpful.
I must say, however, that I somewhat disagree with one of your points,
namely:
Thus our point is that building a distribution consisting
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I fear you miss the cruical point here:
Thomas interpretation is that of a crippled fragment of the TeX system that
he wants to judges on its own (ie let's look at TeX the program)
while Boris, David, and I try to explain that it is our
Boris Veytsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I do NOT think that Debian really wishes to do this or to change
LaTeX. My understanding it that they want to have a *right* to do
this, but do not wish to exercise this right. The argument between
Thomas and me was exactly this: Thomas thinks that he
First, three quotations:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Date: 09 Aug 2002 19:01:06 -0700
This is a massively inconsistent sentence. But there is one and only
one way to make it consistent. The files are in the public
domain--fully, completely--and the rest of the
Boris Veytsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas, you rightly say that only Debian can interpret DFSG. While I
agree with you in that, it seems that now you want to have the power
to interpret the word free. This is, in my opinion, a far-fetched
idea. TeX community used the word free for
On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 12:03:16AM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
Thomas, you rightly say that only Debian can interpret DFSG. While I
agree with you in that, it seems that now you want to have the power
to interpret the word free. This is, in my opinion, a far-fetched
It's already been
Boris Veytsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Now it seems that Thomas does not agree with this understanding and
says that I do not interpret DFSG correctly. It may be so. I am a
Debian *user*, not a Debian developer. However, you seem to
accept the second way to be valid.
The problem is that
On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 01:38:27AM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
(my reply is a subset of TB's; elided)
Completely new systems based on TeX code? Huh?
Glenn, if you do not know about such systems, this does not mean that
they do not exist, right?
Boris, if it's based on TeX code, it's
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Date: 07 Aug 2002 22:48:36 -0700
Boris Veytsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Now it seems that Thomas does not agree with this understanding and
says that I do not interpret DFSG correctly. It may be so. I am a
Debian *user*, not a Debian
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 02:05:04 -0400
From: Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Completely new systems based on TeX code? Huh?
Glenn, if you do not know about such systems, this does not mean that
they do not exist, right?
Boris, if it's based on TeX code, it's not a completely new
* Boris Veytsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020808 00:16]:
TeX and LaTeX are not just great programs. They are also document
exchange programs. I need to know that TeX on my installation is the
same as TeX on the e-print server or on my publisher's machine.
Of course, Debian is free to distribute
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 20:26:26 +0200
From: Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I will try to describe some worst-case scenario, to describe, what
it is
[the scenario is omitted].
You would be surprised, but this scenario is *not* imaginary. Actually
this is what really happened to me. I
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
Boris Veytsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Date: 08 Aug 2002 12:19:03 -0700
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
* Boris Veytsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020808 21:04]:
[the scenario is omitted].
You would be surprised, but this scenario is *not* imaginary. Actually
this is what really happened to me. I think this story might be
instructive in this discussion, so please bear with me.
The situation I tried
On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 03:04:11PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 20:26:26 +0200
From: Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I will try to describe some worst-case scenario, to describe, what
it is
[the scenario is omitted].
You would be surprised, but this
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Date: 08 Aug 2002 12:52:47 -0700
No. I want to say:
Knuth wanted to make TeX free, and he did. And the LaTeX people want
a *different* license from the TeX license--indeed, they want one that
is quite possibly non-free.
Because the LaTeX
Boris Veytsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 21:58:40 +0200
From: Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A lunatic author can make it impossible to get a stable system, most
of the time even changes will not help to get a system which is also
feasable to be used with interchanged documents from and to new and
old
At 04:56 PM 8/8/02 -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
Thomas, the wishes of Knuth need not to be divined. He expressed them
quite clearly. Why do not you read some FAQ, say,
http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=TeXfuture
You think that's clear? The only thing pertinent to the argument, and
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 16:21:10 -0400
From: Simon Law [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My goodness! Here's where all our experiences with dynamic
libraries pay off.
Do you remember how glibc team broke the compatibility between MINOR
versions? It was a jolly sight
For the love of all
On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 04:21:10PM -0400, Simon Law wrote:
My goodness! Here's where all our experiences with dynamic
libraries pay off.
For the love of all that is good in this world, when the LaTeX3
team finally releases it to the world: please include these two things:
1.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Date: 08 Aug 2002 14:01:29 -0700
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.
This statement is not
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 17:22:14 -0400
From: Alan Shutko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I doubt it's that. I think it more likely that Thomas is arguing
against your insistence that TeX be removed wholly from Debian by
explaining his interpretation of the issues. In his interpretation,
TeX is
On Mon, 5 Aug 2002 11:10:12 -0500, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 09:53:20AM -0600, Julian Gilbey wrote:
On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 09:33:37AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I repeat: the file renaming requirement is not DFSG-free, and you
wanting it to be so
Lars Hellström [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[1] On a completely off-topic matter, shouldn't that rather be your
wanting it to be so, with a possesive pronoun and the -ing form of the
verb? Perhaps someone natively English-speaking can clarify this; I suspect
it could be a matter on the lines of
On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 04:43:59PM +0200, Lars Hellström wrote:
If you think such a license is non-free because the newfoobar in the first
argument of \ProvidesPackage is functional then it would be inconsistent
to not declare as non-free also a license that only requires a version
number
On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 05:22:14PM -0400, Alan Shutko wrote:
I doubt it's that. I think it more likely that Thomas is arguing
against your insistence that TeX be removed wholly from Debian by
explaining his interpretation of the issues. In his interpretation,
TeX is DSFG-free, and in yours,
On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 06:29:21PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 23:09:17 +0100
From: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Since it is almost certainly not possible to trademark a filename
anyway, the solution seems fairly clear. We find a free font to
replace this
On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 10:40:14PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
I am afraid you cannot do this: since TeX is trademarked, you cannot
substitute a new font for it without violating trademark.
So the package name gets changed, and a couple lines gets added to the
description. Boo hoo.
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 22:40:14 +0100
From: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=20
I am afraid you cannot do this: since TeX is trademarked, you cannot
substitute a new font for it without violating trademark.=20
So the package name gets changed, and a couple lines gets added to the
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 17:43:37 -0400
From: Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 10:40:14PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
So the package name gets changed, and a couple lines gets added to the
description. Boo hoo. Trivial and irrelevant.
Which has been done,
Boris Veytsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
TeX and LaTeX are not just great programs. They are also document
exchange programs. I need to know that TeX on my installation is the
same as TeX on the e-print server or on my publisher's machine.
Sure!
But why do you need that the TeX that John
On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 06:26:30PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
So the package name gets changed, and a couple lines gets added to the
description. Boo hoo. Trivial and irrelevant.
Which has been done, already, no? s/tex/tetex/.
Glenn, to say the truth, I am appaled by the low
On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 07:23:24PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
Note that etex, omega and pdftex do not make this claim:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ etex
This is e-TeX, Version 3.14159-2.1 (Web2C 7.3.7)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ pdftex
This is pdfTeX, Version
On Tue, 6 Aug 2002 08:08:52 -0600 (MDT), Joe Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Boris Veytsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A hypothetical question. LaTeX has a facility of patching at compile
time -- the loading of system-wide or user-wide .cfg files. Would you
Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Boris Veytsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A hypothetical question. LaTeX has a facility of patching at compile
time -- the loading of system-wide or user-wide .cfg files. Would you
consider LaTeX license DFSG-free if it would explicitly mention this
patching
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Problem is there is no point to talk about those individually. Don is not
interested to have a bare TeX alone being TeX; he is interested that a file
like texbook.tex is producing identical output on different TeX systems and
that is where all the
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 21:41:45 -0500
From: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, as you noted, the TM (trademark) isn't Knuth's. The trademarks
belong to the AMS and Addison-Wesley. (Though I would hope they have
taken the time to consult with Knuth so as to not enforce the trademarks
Boris Veytsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ok. Does this mean they must have the freedom to distribute the
modified cmr10.tfm in any manner, *including* packaging the file with
TeX?
Sure! Why not?
Free software is even about the freedom to be malicious. As with free
speech, we trust that
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Date: 05 Aug 2002 19:46:09 -0700
You cannot modify tex.web at all, but you are free to patch it with
what you want and distribute the results, including binaries made from
it. This is exactly the sort of thing that DFSG 4 had in mind,
Boris Veytsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Date: 05 Aug 2002 19:46:09 -0700
You cannot modify tex.web at all, but you are free to patch it with
what you want and distribute the results, including binaries made from
it. This is exactly
On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 09:22:24PM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
no he was talking about these three, but that is the article published in
tugboat and i don't see that it states at any point that it supersedes
anything put on individual files by him. It wasn't written as a license
statement
On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 10:11:18PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
My fellow Debian developers are generally not shy about letting me (or
the whole world, for that matter) know when they disagree with me.
I think in this case the silence should be put down to ennui rather than
tacit agreement.
On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 04:22:27PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
Let us clarify this a bit. Suppose I change the file cmr10.tfm without
changing its name. As long as TeX does not see it, I do not think
Knuth objects. However, if TeX DOES see it, it does not behave like
the trademarked TeX with
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 23:09:17 +0100
From: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Since it is almost certainly not possible to trademark a filename
anyway, the solution seems fairly clear. We find a free font to
replace this one with, and we drop it in place as cmr10.mf, excising
the old
On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 01:45:17PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
GUYS, CUT IT OUT WITH THE CCS. I KNOW BOTH OF YOU READ DEBIAN-LEGAL,
AND YOU'LL NOTE I HAVEN'T BEEN CCING YOU RECENTLY.
--
G. Branden Robinson|Damnit, we're all
On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 02:01:58PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
Unless Professor Knuth applies for trademark protection in the names
TeX, METAFONT, and Computer Modern, the only tool (as far as I
know) he has at his disposal to *legally* enforce his wishes is
copyright law.
I am
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
All right. It doesn't harm my analysis to presume that the message
quoted by Ms. Connelly does not constitute a grant of license to any
party. We're still in the position of needing the copyright notices and
license terms inside TeX, METAFONT, and
On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 12:15:32AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 05:03:02PM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
I think you mix things here a lot.
1. We already discussed the fact that LaTeX does have a patch
mechanism. We demonstrated it here.
The crucial
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 21:16:08 -0500
From: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Are you asking Debian to regard the following license as DFSG-free?
Copyright 1996-2002 Software in the Public Interest, Inc.
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person
But can I modify the behavior of any part of LaTeX, including what
happens when I load article.sty?
Yes. But in order to do so, you either have to:
1) request such a change in your document (\documentclass{myarticle}, or
\renewcommand\documentclass or something like that)
That doesn't
Boris Veytsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Date: 05 Aug 2002 21:41:27 -0700
But can I modify the behavior of any part of LaTeX, including what
happens when I load article.sty?
Can you modify plain.tex?
Yes, if I do so by patches. I
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Date: 06 Aug 2002 13:54:08 -0700
Can you modify plain.tex?
Yes, if I do so by patches. I can do the following:
Rename plain.tex to origplain.tex.
Create a new plain.tex that loads origplain.tex and then hacks the
environment as I
Boris Veytsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The beginning of this file contains the phrase:
% And don't modify the file under any circumstances.
You *do* modify this file, using a sophistic argument to tell that you
do not. You probably can do this on your own computer because
copyright and
Boris Veytsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You *do* modify this file, using a sophistic argument to tell that you
do not. You probably can do this on your own computer because
copyright and trademark laws cannot forbid you to modify your own copy
of a work.
Incidentally, copyright laws most
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 01:34:43AM -0700, C.M. Connelly wrote:
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,
anybody can make use of my programs in
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 10:54:37AM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
Knuth is unfortunately (or fortunately if you go by the legal content only?)
somewhat inprecise by using words like public domain together with
copyrighted etc.
It's more than imprecise, it is contradictory. That which is not
Branden Robinson writes:
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 10:54:37AM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
However I think it would be a poor solution to argue legally that you
are able to ignore Don's explicit wishes simply because he is a
Computer Scientist rather than a lawyer and was unable to
Branden Robinson writes:
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 01:34:43AM -0700, C.M. Connelly wrote:
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,
On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 12:01:09PM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
Even here on the list I noted that several people (which I presume to to be
debian-legal regulars) used public domain in different senses.
There is only one sense.
Someday, Professor Knuth should be contacted and asked to
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 01:54:02 -0500
From: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
These statements are in tension. If Professor Knuth asserts the latter,
he logically *cannot* be asserting the former.
Knuth is asserting his copyright to impose the restrictions described
above; therefore
Branden Robinson writes:
On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 12:01:09PM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
Even here on the list I noted that several people (which I presume to to
be
debian-legal regulars) used public domain in different senses.
There is only one sense.
I wasn't questioning
On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 09:33:37AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I repeat: the file renaming requirement is not DFSG-free, and you
wanting it to be so will not make it so. DFSG 4 does not permit it.
4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code
The license may restrict source-code from
On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 11:04:56AM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
I cannot claim to understand *all* intricacies of Don's great brain,
but I always understood his intentions with respect to TeX and friends
in the following way:
1. As a true CS professor, Knuth distinguishes between the program
Branden Robinson writes:
On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 11:47:59AM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
It did however happen, several times by individuals and that was all I was
referring to. Perhaps you missed those posts which wouldn't be surprising
given the number of posts on the whole subject.
On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 05:40:00PM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
I wasn't questioning that, I was pointing out that while this is legally true,
many people misunderstand the fact that they use a legal term and use it for
something slightly different (and even some people on this list)
All we
Branden Robinson writes:
Perhaps it strains your credulity, but that's all Debian really
requires. Such statements from a copyright holder are a license, every
no it does not. but as there are interpretative statements around (by Don) as
well as copyright notices on individual files and
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 11:05:28 -0500
From: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You have an unhealthy obsession with filenames. A filename is no more
Who is trying to be offensive now? Branden, cannot we make this a
civil discussion, even given the fact we disagree? Believe me, I've
led enough
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 19:52:28 +0200
From: Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED]
that remark with the historical context is not clear to me as the
names for the collective works have been trademarked (Computer
Modern not i think)
http://www.yandy.com/cm.htm says:
(TM) Computer Modern is a
On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 06:59:56PM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
but Don hasn't put his work out as a whole with a license
Then to what, exactly, do his statements in comp.text.tex on Wed, 23 Feb
1994 03:34:01 GMT apply?
To nothing at all? Was he just talking to hear himself talk, or was he
What're your plans for tonight?
Watch one of the 6 DVDs I got in the mail, or some of the many dragon ball
Zs I probably have on Tivo, go to your place, watch class, go out to
celebrate, pass out, wake up when my head hits the table, pass out again,
excuse myself from the celebrations, go
On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 07:37:22PM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
really, what is behind all this aren't file names but works (plural), and each
of such works is supposed not to claim itself as the original (to other
related works) after it was modified, eg a font is a work and plain.tex is a
On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 07:37:22PM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
Branden Robinson writes:
On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 11:04:56AM -0400, Boris Veytsman wrote:
1. As a true CS professor, Knuth distinguishes between the program
(i.e. the code of the program) and the name of the program
On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 02:23:31PM -0400, Itai Zukerman wrote:
What're your plans for tonight?
Watch one of the 6 DVDs I got in the mail, or some of the many dragon ball
Zs I probably have on Tivo, go to your place, watch class, go out to
celebrate, pass out, wake up when my head hits
Branden Robinson writes:
On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 06:59:56PM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
but Don hasn't put his work out as a whole with a license
Then to what, exactly, do his statements in comp.text.tex on Wed, 23 Feb
1994 03:34:01 GMT apply?
To nothing at all? Was he just
Branden Robinson writes:
On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 02:23:31PM -0400, Itai Zukerman wrote:
What're your plans for tonight?
Watch one of the 6 DVDs I got in the mail, or some of the many dragon
ball
Zs I probably have on Tivo, go to your place, watch class, go out to
Glenn Maynard writes:
On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 07:37:22PM +0200, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
really, what is behind all this aren't file names but works (plural), and
each
of such works is supposed not to claim itself as the original (to other
related works) after it was modified, eg a
Boris Veytsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I understand this opinion. Your assertion that DFSG-4 does not protect
file names logically follows from it. The problem is, I do not share
this opinion. This does not make neither of us a person with an
unhealthy mind; however, there must be some way
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 14:07:45 -0500
From: Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It is *human* confusion that Knuth has sought to avoid, not confusion on
the part of computers. Strictly speaking, computers don't get confused.
They do what they're told, or throw an exception.
[...]
In
Branden Robinson writes:
and only acceptable if it can't be checked by a computer as being the
original.
It would be trivially easy to circumvent computer checks. What about
case-sensitivity? Can I trust a computer to catch ALL of the following
uses of TeX?
I'm talking of
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
the problem with Don's work is, that you have to make assumptions or raise
opinions on what he means. but assuming he clarifies or you pick an
interpretation it then needs a discussion on whether it fits the not
completely unambiguous, interpretable,
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Date: 05 Aug 2002 13:01:07 -0700
Now, you treat this is as if there are merely differing
interpretations of DFSG-4. But there are not. The only interpretors
of DFSG-4 are the Debian Project. Nobody else. We don't make any
kind of promise
Frank Mittelbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~ more ~/tex.web
% This program is copyright (C) 1982 by D. E. Knuth; all rights are reserved.
% Copying of this file is authorized only if (1) you are D. E. Knuth, or if
% (2) you make absolutely no changes to your copy. (The WEB
Boris Veytsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In other words, I do not think that Debian Project's interpretation of
DFSG is exactly the same as Thomas Bushnell's one. Until I see the
former, I think my opinion here is not worse than your opinion.
The consensus of the developers on the list is
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Date: 05 Aug 2002 13:45:17 -0700
You can't change tex.web, but you can do *anything* you like to it, as
long as you do so via patch files. And in Knuth's wacked out language
(WEB), he even has a decent automatic patch file mechanism *built
1 - 100 of 226 matches
Mail list logo
