This is the response I got from John Hobby wrt the two MetaPost manuals. (He also sent the sources, for an older version of LaTeX; I'll get them working with a modern LaTeX and forward both the new and old version.) Are his conditions fine, or do I need to ask for more clarification? (It seems that he gives conditions as preferences, rather than legal requirements.)
[Background: we currently ship these manuals in tetex-doc, without
source.]
Best,
Dylan Thurston
----- Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----
Delivery-date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 18:04:05 -0400
Subject: Re: MetaPost manual
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=6.6 required=10.0
tests=NO_REAL_NAME,THE_FOLLOWING_FORM,GAPPY_TEXT,NO_MX_FOR_FROM version=2.11
Enclosed are the sources for the Metapost manual--the sources for the
other document will be sent separately.
> Do you want to be more precise about the terms in which you release
> them?
I only want it to remain clear that I am the author of
"A User's Manual for MetaPost" and "Drawing Graphs with MetaPost"
and I am allowing them to be freely distributed electronically.
I am not going to prohibit minor changes and corrections, but I don't
want a bunch of competing versions to appear. I have authorized
certain translations and I gave Alan Hoenig permission to use a few
pages worth of material in his book, but I would still like to be
consulted in such cases.
By the way, although I seldom do so myself, it is fine with me if people
want to typeset the (unofficial) MetaPost logo using all caps and Knuth's
METAFONT logo font.
pgp6Ibz4VudlM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
