-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Computer Modern appears to be a trademark of the American Mathematical
Society. I don't know what impact a lack of mention of that in vol
E. would have.
- -Brian
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
On 2002-09-08 00:37:59 -0400, Brian Sniffen wrote:
Computer Modern appears to be a trademark of the American Mathematical
Society. I don't know what impact a lack of mention of that in vol
What makes you think that?
Best regards
Martin
--
http://www.tm.oneiros.de
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Some google searching and earlier discussion here indicated that CM
and TeX were trademarks of the AMS, while MF was a trademark of A-W
Publishing.
Knuth's own page on CT lists only the trademarks of TeX and MF, so
perhaps the CM trademark has gone
On 2002-09-08 12:17:44 -0400, Brian Sniffen wrote:
Knuth's own page on CT lists only the trademarks of TeX and MF, so
perhaps the CM trademark has gone unenforced or been dropped.
Since none of the books (and none of the cm files) and no
literatur on TeX mention CM as a trademark, I strongly
On Sun, Sep 08, 2002 at 10:56:47PM +0200, Martin Schröder wrote:
Knuth's own page on CT lists only the trademarks of TeX and MF, so
perhaps the CM trademark has gone unenforced or been dropped.
Since none of the books (and none of the cm files) and no
literatur on TeX mention CM as a
Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Computer Modern appears to be a trademark of the American Mathematical
Society. I don't know what impact a lack of mention of that in vol
E. would have.
None. A trademark holder has his trademark whether or not he
continually mentions the fact.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian Sniffen) wrote on 04.09.02 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Bear in mind, Russ, nobody is questioning whether TeX (or LaTeX) are
*good* software, or *useful* software, or even *open source* software.
The question is whether they are free software.
Statements like this really
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote on 04.09.02 in [EMAIL
PROTECTED]:
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The arguments that have been presented that say that requiring file
renaming is an infringment on the freedoms guaranteed by the DFSG are
certainly reasonable ones and
On Sat, Sep 07, 2002 at 08:36:00PM +0200, Kai Henningsen wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian Sniffen) wrote on 04.09.02 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Bear in mind, Russ, nobody is questioning whether TeX (or LaTeX) are
*good* software, or *useful* software, or even *open source* software.
The
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes:
DFSG says that you have to permit modification. (By patches or
directly.) That is violated by a rule like if you modify this, you
must chant the kama sutra or if you modify this, you cannot name the
output file foo.bar.
It is not actually
Martin Schr??der wrote:
On 2002-09-06 18:59:45 -0400, Dylan Thurston wrote:
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 03:35:17PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
The names could only be restricted if they are trademarked, which they
are not. Computer Modern might be trademarked (I don't know),
It is,
On Wed, 4 Sep, Brian Sniffen wrote:
Sadly, I don't own a copy of Computers Typesetting. Can you quote
the full copyright page, and give a general indication of the contents
of Volume E?
Somewhat surprisingly, no-one has done this completely yet. Computers
Typesetting, Volume E, Computer
Dylan Thurston [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However, use of the names is restricted:
This is a slightly odd statement, since (AFAIK) names cannot be
restricted in the ways that follow. The crucial issue seems to be
whether this statement (and what follows) are terms of the grant of
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 03:35:17PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
However, use of the names is restricted:
This is a slightly odd statement, since (AFAIK) names cannot be
restricted in the ways that follow. The crucial issue seems to be
whether this statement (and what follows)
On 2002-09-06 18:59:45 -0400, Dylan Thurston wrote:
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 03:35:17PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
The names could only be restricted if they are trademarked, which they
are not. Computer Modern might be trademarked (I don't know),
It is, as indicated in the text I
Chris Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The Debian Project has a philosophical commitment to protecting the
freedoms of the users of software that it calls free. These freedoms
are spelled out in the Debian Social Contract and Debian Free Software
Guidelines.
You can argue whether the
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The arguments that have been presented that say that requiring file
renaming is an infringment on the freedoms guaranteed by the DFSG are
certainly reasonable ones and I can find much in them to agree with, but
the DFSG really *aren't* clear on this
On Wed, 2002-09-04 at 18:40, Russ Allbery wrote:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And note that it begins with I decided to put these fonts into the
public domain; all I have asked is
On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 08:09:55PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
I don't find your argument particularly persuasive; it seems to be very
strong on emotion without a lot of logic to back it up, or without any
real discussion of what you're trying to defend and why.
That's because some of us have
On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 08:48:16PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Right, I understand your distinction between what Debian does and what its
users do, and it makes sense to me. I just still would never say that
it's okay to break this kind of request, although I might say that it's
legally
Then he must be giving his earnest encouragements, and not a license,
since the work is public domain, right?
I don't know.
I can understand the principle that if something is PD then you can't
claim licence conditions on it, however some who've indicated that they
have a better grasp of the
I don't really have anything to say that hasn't been said by others in
the past, but since some folks are (understandably, really) tired of
the issue, I thought I'd try to explain the standard debian-legal take
on it. Someone correct me if I'm inaccurate.
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2002-09-05 08:57:57 -0400, Brian Sniffen wrote:
Fortunately, as Thomas has repeatedly explained, the license on the CM
fonts appears to require changing only the .mf file name, which is not
a functional part.
IBTD. The common interpretation in the TeX community IIRC is that
a file cmr10.tfm
Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And if you'd taken that sentence in the context of its paragraph, you'd
have seen that it referred explicitly to LaTeX.
You're right; I'm sorry. My mind was going faster than my eyes, and I
apologize for the misunderstanding.
Anyway, thank you for
Martin Schröder [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
IBTD. The common interpretation in the TeX community IIRC is that
a file cmr10.tfm must contain the same metrices and encodings as
Knuth's. You may change the font (i.e. the appearance of the
glpyhs), but the metrices must be Knuth's.
The common
And note that it begins with I decided to put these fonts into the
public domain; all I have asked is that ...
As has been stated many times, the conditions on Knuth's programs and
fonts are scattered over many places, the copyright pages in books, and
comments in source code and readme files
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 4 Sep 2002 09:36:31 +0100, David Carlisle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
And note that it begins with I decided to put these fonts into the
public domain; all I have asked is that ...
As has been stated many times, the conditions on Knuth's
The reference to enforcement by shunning and community effort seems to
indicate otherwise. I've been trying to read that statement from
every angle I can think of, but I just can't find a consistent meaning
other than that Knuth has put this in the public domain, but makes strong
requests
On 2002-09-04 16:13:24 +0100, David Carlisle wrote:
Sadly, I don't own a copy of Computers Typesetting vol E either.
The millenium edition has this:
The programs for Computer Modern are in the public domain,
and readers may freely generate and hand-tune their own fonts
using the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 4 Sep 2002 16:13:24 +0100, David Carlisle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
The reference to enforcement by shunning and community effort seems to
indicate otherwise. I've been trying to read that statement from
every angle I can think of, but
Perhaps this should be taken to mean that even though
they're now in the public domain, the wishes expressed in those
copyright notices should still be followed?
I don't think the status of the released cm fonts has ever changed has
it? From the beginning the statements about copyright and PD
TeX, METAFONT, and the CM fonts certainly were under his
copyright at some point in the past, and there are copyright notices
- From that era.
I see Martin has posted the text from vol E (ME).
Note that the millenium edition is fairly new (as its name suggests)
a combined set of all of the
David Carlisle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However the _intent_ of the TeX conditions is clear (and stated in all
caps in the text I quoted); Change whatever you like, so long as you
change your name (including names of relevant files).
The name of, exactly, what? That's the problem.
Knuth
Martin Schröder [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2002-09-04 16:13:24 +0100, David Carlisle wrote:
Sadly, I don't own a copy of Computers Typesetting vol E either.
The millenium edition has this:
The programs for Computer Modern are in the public domain,
and readers may freely
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Carlisle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The text of Knuth's statement appears to have been removed from all the
obvious places where it was posted at the time, but I turned up a copy
at this address:
And note that it begins with I decided to
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Carlisle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The text of Knuth's statement appears to have been removed from all the
obvious places where it was posted at the time, but I turned up a copy
at this address:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And note that it begins with I decided to put these fonts into the
public domain; all I have asked is that ...
Note that if this means *anything* at all, the
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Perhaps in part, but your line of reasoning above makes me extremely
uncomfortable. When the author of a package has clearly stated their
expectations and requirements for redistribution, it seems like that
should be treated as the license, even if they
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Even if Debian is not violating the intended license directly, to base
a stance on the viewpoint that the license is legally uninforcable and
therefore irrelevant seems rather disconcerting.
Are you
On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 05:24:30PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Yes. This is the fundamental question, namely whether the DFSG only
allows requirements of changing names as a way to handle what are in
essence marketing issues (making sure the user knows they have a modified
package), or whether
On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 05:24:30PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Even if Debian is not violating the intended license directly, to base
a stance on the viewpoint that the license is legally uninforcable and
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's not clear to me, but that doesn't really matter. If the entire TeX
community is going to rise up and call Debian a bunch of degenerates for
saying that something that's been placed in the public domain is in the
public domain, then maybe Debian
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bear in mind, Russ, nobody is questioning whether TeX (or LaTeX) are
*good* software, or *useful* software, or even *open source* software.
The question is whether they are free software. A restricted API,
which you call a protected API, is not a
On Sep 04, Russ Allbery wrote:
I don't find your argument particularly persuasive; it seems to be very
strong on emotion without a lot of logic to back it up, or without any
real discussion of what you're trying to defend and why.
The Debian Project has a philosophical commitment to protecting
Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bear in mind, Russ, nobody is questioning whether TeX (or LaTeX) are
*good* software, or *useful* software, or even *open source* software.
I understand.
The question is whether they are free software. A restricted API, which
you call a protected
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
RMS considered TeX part of the GNU System from the writings that I'm
familiar with since very early on in the development of that system, so
apparently, at least from that, did not have a problem with the copying
policy. I suppose it's possible that he
Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
RMS considered TeX part of the GNU System from the writings that I'm
familiar with since very early on in the development of that system, so
apparently, at least from that, did not have a problem with the
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The CM fonts are generally considered to be part of the TeX system, since
they're the default fonts, and I believe they've had this renaming
requirement at least for quite some time. I certainly remember it clearly
from when I first started using TeX in
Having been away I just have just (rather depressingly) caught up with
the August archive of latex licence discussion.
There seems to be the usual quota of misinformation concerning the tex
licence, but one particular point was raised.
As has been mentioned the rename clause of computer modern
David Carlisle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The text of Knuth's statement appears to have been removed from all the
obvious places where it was posted at the time, but I turned up a copy
at this address:
And note that it begins with I decided to put these fonts into the
public domain; all I have
50 matches
Mail list logo
