Le mer 14/08/2002 à 20:48, Ben Armstrong a écrit :
I'd like to educate about DFSG-free licensing. Unfortunately, it's going to
be rough sledding unless I can find a license that is likely to address the
problems fontographers typically face when deciding how to license their
work (like: How
On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 10:43:06PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
I think something like the LPPL would merely do the trick. Modifying the
font would be allowed, but would also require a name change.
After looking over the LPPL, it looks like it would do the job. Do you know
of any precedent
On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 06:03:12PM -0300, Ben Armstrong wrote:
I think something like the LPPL would merely do the trick. Modifying the
font would be allowed, but would also require a name change.
After looking over the LPPL, it looks like it would do the job. Do you know
of any precedent
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 01:16:14PM -0300, Ben Armstrong wrote:
So now, the list of packages in violation of non-free font licenses:
...
feh
- contains 'helmetr' (Sun)[1]
gozer
- contains 'helmetr' (Sun)[1]
...
xplanet
- contains 'helmetr' (Sun)[1]
...
Footnotes:
...
[1] I have been
Now would be a really good time for people to email authors of decent
TrueType freeware fonts to see if they can be convinced to put their fonts
under a DFSG-free license if anyone is interested in doing that.
For the author of ttf-larabie-*, i tried that when i made these
packages. The
On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 04:54:37PM +0200, Erich Schubert wrote:
For the author of ttf-larabie-*, i tried that when i made these
packages. The licence we got does NOT fulfill all DFSG requirements, but
is already very liberate. I don't think we'll get further than that.
So please don't press
Ben How am I going to deal with it when someone changes my font to
Ben something ugly and it reflects poorly on my skills as a
Ben fontographer?
How is this at all different from the same question asked about
program source code?
In that context, it is part of the rationale for the Q license,
On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 12:45:06PM -0700, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
Ben How am I going to deal with it when someone changes my font to
Ben something ugly and it reflects poorly on my skills as a
Ben fontographer?
In that context, it is part of the rationale for the Q license,
AFAIK.
On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 09:36:45PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 12:45:06PM -0700, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
Ben How am I going to deal with it when someone changes my font to
Ben something ugly and it reflects poorly on my skills as a
Ben fontographer?
In that context,
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 01:16:14PM -0300, Ben Armstrong wrote:
[1] I have been told that the OpenOffice fonts are not free and were
pulled from CVS a short while ago. This puts ttf-openoffice
into question and any other package that contains a font included
in ttf-openoffice. I
On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 11:35:30PM +0200, Filip Van Raemdonck wrote:
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 01:16:14PM -0300, Ben Armstrong wrote:
[1] I have been told that the OpenOffice fonts are not free and were
pulled from CVS a short while ago. This puts ttf-openoffice
into question and
11 matches
Mail list logo
