Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([62.225.9.49]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Sun, 21 Jul 2002 10:14:58 +0200 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g6L8EdWi003706 for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 10:14:40 +0200 Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.27]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id g6L7usWK002078; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 09:56:54 +0200 (MET DST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C2308E.B3CF6D00" Received: from listserv (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.27]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.2/8.12.2/SuSE Linux 0.6) with ESMTP id g6L2XexT001877; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 09:56:55 +0200 Received: from LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 4382 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 09:56:55 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Received: from relay.uni-heidelberg.de (relay.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.212]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.2/8.12.2/SuSE Linux 0.6) with ESMTP id g6L7uluV003015 for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 09:56:47 +0200 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.177]) by relay.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id g6L7ttWK001969 for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 09:55:55 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from [212.227.126.160] (helo=mrelayng0.kundenserver.de) by moutng3.kundenserver.de with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #2) id 17WBZI-0005rF-00; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 09:55:52 +0200 Received: from [80.129.4.130] (helo=istrati.mittelbach-online.de) by mrelayng0.kundenserver.de with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #2) id 17WBZC-0004rS-00; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 09:55:52 +0200 Received: (from frank@localhost) by istrati.mittelbach-online.de (8.11.2/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) id g6L7sZZ26410; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 09:54:35 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87k7nqrkzw.fsf@becket.becket.net> References: <200207162352.g6GNq9Ow031038@bilbo.localnet> <878z46p1yi.fsf@becket.becket.net> <15673.62597.185188.389384@istrati.mittelbach-online.de> <87k7nqrkzw.fsf@becket.becket.net> Return-Path: X-Mailer: VM 6.96 under Emacs 20.7.1 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Jul 2002 08:14:58.0273 (UTC) FILETIME=[B3F91510:01C2308E] X-Authentication-Warning: istrati.mittelbach-online.de: frank set sender to frank@mittelbach-online.de using -f X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.6 (www dot roaringpenguin dot com slash mimedefang) Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: User's thoughts about LPPL Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 08:54:34 +0100 Message-ID: A<15674.26810.972993.851151@istrati.mittelbach-online.de> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Re: User's thoughts about LPPL Thread-Index: AcIwjrQ6ZwtB3VsKQiyweHZNi5qJZw== From: "Frank Mittelbach" To: Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4337 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2308E.B3CF6D00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes: > >From tripman.tex: > > If somebody claims to have a correct implementation of \TeX, I will = not > believe it until I see that \.{TRIP.TEX} is translated properly. > I propose, in fact, that a program must meet two criteria before it > can justifiably be called \TeX: (1)~The person who wrote it must be > happy with the way it works at his or her installation; and (2)~the > program must produce the correct results from \.{TRIP.TEX}. > > \TeX\ is in the public domain, and its algorithms are published; > I've done this since I do not want to discourage its use by placing > proprietary restrictions on the software. However, I don't want > faulty imitations to masquerade as \TeX\ processors, since users > want \TeX\ to produce identical results on different machines. > Hence I am planning to do whatever I can to suppress any systems = that > call themselves \TeX\ without meeting conditions (1) and~(2). > I have copyrighted the programs so that I have some chance to = forbid > unauthorized copies; I explicitly authorize copying of correct > \TeX\ implementations, and not of incorrect ones! > > Sure sounds to me that if numbers (1) and (2) have been met, it can = be > called TeX. it does so. i once made the remark that the way tripman alone is = phrased I can write a program that - reads in files (and ignores their content) - writes out two or three files by dumping the results expected by = TRIP.TEX then i only have to feel happy about it to be able to call it TeX. :-) = in other words you can always trip wordings (as several try to prove to me = too) Don has clarified the definition of what is TeX and what not on several occasions. You may be right that it is not codified in a license (though = the text in the tripman isn't a license either) > The issue is not about bug fixes or extensions, but about whether > something is "faulty", and the test--as here carefully specified by > Knuth--is whether you are happy with how it works for you, and it = must > produce the canonical output from the trip test. > > Is there something that contradicts that? i think so yes, for example, Don's home page other may be able to refer you to more explicit quotes. frank ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2308E.B3CF6D00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: User's thoughts about LPPL

Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
 > >From tripman.tex:
 >
 >   If somebody claims to have a = correct implementation of \TeX, I will not
 >   believe it until I see that = \.{TRIP.TEX} is translated properly.
 >   I propose, in fact, that a = program must meet two criteria before it
 >   can justifiably be called = \TeX: (1)~The person who wrote it must be
 >   happy with the way it works at = his or her installation; and (2)~the
 >   program must produce the = correct results from \.{TRIP.TEX}.
 >
 >   \TeX\ is in the public domain, = and its algorithms are published;
 >   I've done this since I do not = want to discourage its use by placing
 >   proprietary restrictions on = the software. However, I don't want
 >   faulty imitations to = masquerade as \TeX\ processors, since users
 >   want \TeX\ to produce = identical results on different machines.
 >   Hence I am planning to do = whatever I can to suppress any systems that
 >   call themselves \TeX\ without = meeting conditions (1) and~(2).
 >   I have copyrighted the = programs so that I have some chance to forbid
 >   unauthorized copies; I = explicitly authorize copying of correct
 >   \TeX\ implementations, and not = of incorrect ones!
 >
 > Sure sounds to me that if numbers (1) and = (2) have been met, it can be
 > called TeX.

it does so.  i once made the remark that the way = tripman alone is phrased I
can write a program that

 - reads in files (and ignores their = content)
 - writes out two or three files by dumping the = results expected by TRIP.TEX

then i only have to feel happy about it to be able to = call it TeX. :-) in
other words you can always trip wordings (as several = try to prove to me too)

Don has clarified the definition of what is TeX and = what not on several
occasions. You may be right that it is not codified = in a license (though the
text in the tripman isn't a license either)


 > The issue is not about bug fixes or = extensions, but about whether
 > something is "faulty", and the = test--as here carefully specified by
 > Knuth--is whether you are happy with how = it works for you, and it must
 > produce the canonical output from the trip = test.
 >
 > Is there something that contradicts = that?

i think so yes, for example, Don's home page
other may be able to refer you to more explicit = quotes.

frank

------_=_NextPart_001_01C2308E.B3CF6D00--