🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <SMITH.91Jul31141652@michael.harvard.edu>, smith@michael.harvard.edu (Steven Smith) writes:
> This question touches upon upon something I am curious about: Has
> Knuth ever made public his motivations for freely distributing TeX and
> METAFONT?  Aside from his evident altruistic considerations, were
> there constraints imposed upon bringing TeX to the market by granting
> agencies or the AMS?  (Is this any of my business? No, but I _am_ curious.)
> 
> It appears that this was a shrewd decision.  TeX is the standard or
> preferred medium for many academic journals.  It's power, quality, and
> price have made it ubiquitous in the demanding and penurious
> academic/research environment.  This ubiquity must have fostered
> not-insignificant sales of The TeXbook.

I had the pleasure of being at Stanford with Don Knuth during much of
TeX's gestation period.  I cannot let stand the implication of this last
statement, that perhaps Knuth had planned all along to make buckets of money
from TeXbook sales, and that's why he gave TeX and Metafont away.
He is one of the most genuinely kind and thoughtful people you could
ever meet, and I strongly believe that altruism was the only reason
for his actions.  (Okay, he's only human, so he probably also relishes
the ego-boost that comes from knowing that so many people are using and
approving one's work.)  I would not be in the least surprised to learn
that he donates some fraction of TeXbook profits to some worthy cause.

I forget what the deal with AMS was, but undoubtedly whatever arrangements
were made were for the purpose of fostering a wide TeX community.

Howard Trickey
AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill
trickey@research.att.com