🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <OZ.92Jan15102121@ursa.sis.yorku.ca>, oz@ursa.sis.yorku.ca (Ozan Yigit) writes:
> schrod@iti.informatik.th-darmstadt.de (Joachim Schrod) writes:
> 
>    I doubt this. Look at TeX. ``Usually well informed sources'' told me
>    that its code is used in several places (ie, in several commercial
>    systems) without having the author asked for. And there *is* a
>    copyright.
> 
> Upon my inquiries regarding that copyright, and its consequences on
> derivative versions (such as Ctex) many years ago, DEK released a statement
> indicating that TeX sources were considered Public Domain. End of Story.

[My remark about the usage of the name TeX for non-validated system
was deleted.]

itihp11 $ head -1 tex.web
% This program is copyright (C) 1982 by D. E. Knuth; all rights are reserved.

To cite myself: ``There *is* a copyright.'' qed.
[You can copy the file if you don't change it or if you rename it.]

But this was not the point I mentioned. Kee said that copyright
holders are asked if one can use their source. I said not always and
gave an example. I did not say that you didn't ask DEK and I did not
comment if it's legal to use the TeX source. I did comment on the
question if a pure copyright statement is enough to prevent others
from using it in their work. (I don't know if the GPL is enough, but
that's another story. I don't want to be involved in this holy war.)

--
Joachim
Darmstadt, Germany
<schrod@iti.informatik.th-darmstadt.de>