Hi.
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on Tue, 03 Apr 2001 21:29:34 +0200,
on Re: DFSG and fonts [was: Bug#91856: Hello],
Juliusz Chroboczek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> DS> what if X 5.0 only supports OpenType and BDF fonts, and Y&Y isn't
> DS> interested in conve
Hi.
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on Tue, 03 Apr 2001 21:29:34 +0200,
on Re: DFSG and fonts [was: Bug#91856: Hello],
Juliusz Chroboczek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> DS> what if X 5.0 only supports OpenType and BDF fonts, and Y&Y isn't
> DS> interested in conve
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > > What are they? They need serious bugs filed against them.
> > >
> > > e.g. doc-rfc ?
> >
> > The GNU General Public Licence itself may not be modified. I hope this
> > doesn't mean ...
>
> Copyright licenses as legal documents may not be modified ex
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 08:37:12AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> > > What are they? They need serious bugs filed against them.
> >
> > e.g. doc-rfc ?
>
> The GNU General Public Licence itself may not be modified. I hope this
> doesn't mean ...
Copyright licenses as legal documents may
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > > What are they? They need serious bugs filed against them.
> > >
> > > e.g. doc-rfc ?
> >
> > The GNU General Public Licence itself may not be modified. I hope this
> > doesn't mean ...
>
> Copyright licenses as legal documents may not be modified e
James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > While the issues on unmodifiable non-software stuff in Debian are
> > > not as clear-cut as Branden has made them out to be (I know of at
> > > least a half dozen packages in main that are unmodifiable, that were
> > > put there knowing that)
> >
> > What ar
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 08:37:12AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> > > What are they? They need serious bugs filed against them.
> >
> > e.g. doc-rfc ?
>
> The GNU General Public Licence itself may not be modified. I hope this
> doesn't mean ...
Copyright licenses as legal documents may
James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > While the issues on unmodifiable non-software stuff in Debian are
> > > not as clear-cut as Branden has made them out to be (I know of at
> > > least a half dozen packages in main that are unmodifiable, that were
> > > put there knowing that)
> >
> > What a
Juliusz Chroboczek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I share your hope, but I cannot help noticing that the number of
> available scalable fonts is currently the greatest weakness of the
> Free Software and Open Source community (communities?).
However, adding these fonts did nothing to help the prob
On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 09:43:10PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> Branden Robinson:
>
> BR> There are lots of ways to preserve artistic integrity. It's
> BR> perfectly compatible with the DFSG to, for instance, require that
> BR> modified versions change the name of the relevant
> BR> (font|e
Juliusz Chroboczek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I share your hope, but I cannot help noticing that the number of
> available scalable fonts is currently the greatest weakness of the
> Free Software and Open Source community (communities?).
However, adding these fonts did nothing to help the pro
Branden Robinson:
BR> There are lots of ways to preserve artistic integrity. It's
BR> perfectly compatible with the DFSG to, for instance, require that
BR> modified versions change the name of the relevant
BR> (font|executable|data file), to include a disclaimer in the
BR> copyright info about th
DS> Does it cover Latin-3?
Yes, they do.
DS> If it doesn't, then there's a number of characters that could be
DS> added in minutes with the right tools to provide for support of
DS> Esperanto, Maltese and other languages, but we can't, because of
DS> the license.
We share your concern, and we di
On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 09:43:10PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> Branden Robinson:
>
> BR> There are lots of ways to preserve artistic integrity. It's
> BR> perfectly compatible with the DFSG to, for instance, require that
> BR> modified versions change the name of the relevant
> BR> (font|
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 12:18:46PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> > While the issues on unmodifiable non-software stuff in Debian are
> > not as clear-cut as Branden has made them out to be (I know of at
> > least a half dozen packages in main that are
On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 12:18:46PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> While the issues on unmodifiable non-software stuff in Debian are
> not as clear-cut as Branden has made them out to be (I know of at
> least a half dozen packages in main that are unmodifiable, that were
> put there knowing that)
Wh
Branden Robinson:
BR> There are lots of ways to preserve artistic integrity. It's
BR> perfectly compatible with the DFSG to, for instance, require that
BR> modified versions change the name of the relevant
BR> (font|executable|data file), to include a disclaimer in the
BR> copyright info about t
On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 05:53:52PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> As you can imagine, the inclusion of the Lucidux fonts into the
> XFree86 source tree didn't go without a fair amount of hesitation.
It's not my intent to imply that XFree86's decision was either incorrect,
or flawed in process.
On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 05:53:52PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> We concluded that the main reason why we insist on the right to modify
> software is the need to maintain it. After carefully checking the
> technical, as opposed to artistic, quality of the Lucidux fonts (it is
> excellent, tha
DS> Does it cover Latin-3?
Yes, they do.
DS> If it doesn't, then there's a number of characters that could be
DS> added in minutes with the right tools to provide for support of
DS> Esperanto, Maltese and other languages, but we can't, because of
DS> the license.
We share your concern, and we d
Me (Juliusz Chroboczek):
JC> I think we need the DFSG to explicitly provide an exception for
JC> fonts and artwork.
Branden Robinson:
BR> I disagree. To do so would introduce far too much gray area, in my
BR> opinion, and get Debian involved in even more licensing flamewars than we
BR> currentl
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 12:18:46PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> > While the issues on unmodifiable non-software stuff in Debian are
> > not as clear-cut as Branden has made them out to be (I know of at
> > least a half dozen packages in main that ar
On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 12:18:46PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> While the issues on unmodifiable non-software stuff in Debian are
> not as clear-cut as Branden has made them out to be (I know of at
> least a half dozen packages in main that are unmodifiable, that were
> put there knowing that)
W
On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 05:53:52PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> As you can imagine, the inclusion of the Lucidux fonts into the
> XFree86 source tree didn't go without a fair amount of hesitation.
It's not my intent to imply that XFree86's decision was either incorrect,
or flawed in process
On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 05:53:52PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> We concluded that the main reason why we insist on the right to modify
> software is the need to maintain it. After carefully checking the
> technical, as opposed to artistic, quality of the Lucidux fonts (it is
> excellent, th
Me (Juliusz Chroboczek):
JC> I think we need the DFSG to explicitly provide an exception for
JC> fonts and artwork.
Branden Robinson:
BR> I disagree. To do so would introduce far too much gray area, in my
BR> opinion, and get Debian involved in even more licensing flamewars than we
BR> current
26 matches
Mail list logo
