Re: standard fonts and euro
> "Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 1) All of the fonts in the xfree86 source package are freely licensed. > (N.B., this is not the case with the upstream XFree86 source tarballs.) What are the fonts that have been removed ? > 2) Markus Kuhn has, I believe, extended the coverage of all the 75dpi and > 100dpi fonts to include ISO 8859-15 and a whole lot more. This work is > presently in XFree86's CVS HEAD branch and will be part of 4.1.x. > So, if you can hold out a little longer, you'll get your wish with no > labor on your part. Good. Actually I began working on this. But not a lot. Thanks for sparing my energy. What about the Type1 fonts ? Btw, how do you make the Type1 fonts correctly rendered with XFree86 4? Isn't it supposed to use libt1 to do his rendering ? How do you activate that ? Wolfgang
Re: lame (again!)
"Marcelo E. Magallon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Viral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I would like clarify the reason for lame not being included in the debian > > archives, not even non-US. > > http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/unable-to-package > > IIRC your questions are addressed there. A few questions that are not covered in the linked discussion, nor in the postings to debian-legal that I digged up. What is (or can be) prevented by a patent? - Spreading information about an algorithm? - Writing code that implements an algorithm? - Distributing/publishing same code? - Using the code? Is there a difference between distributing source vs. binaries as regards patents? In this specific case, Fraunhofer IIS seems to focus on binaries, for some reason. (BladeENC is still distributed in source form, but no longer pre-compiled, see http://bladeenc.mp3.no/skeleton/news.html>) In how far is the mp3 patent different than the IDEA patent (or the RSA patent a until a few months ago)? We distributed and still distribute source/binaries implementing both of these technologies. Debian does not seem to care about /all/ patents (we probably couldn't distribute any software otherwise), only those that are actively enforced. But lame has been distributed (first as a patch, then as complete source) for considerable time, without major legal hassles, AFAIK. sourceforge (not exactly an off-shore, small-fish site) provided the lame CVS since 1999. Couldn't that be seen as evidence that distributing lame (at least in source form) is "ok". Another minor point is that they claim to cover mp3 *de*coding in their patents as well. If Thomson gets its way, you'd have to pay a fee for every decoder, only those distributed free-of-charge over the net are exempted (http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/swdec.html>) Unless we dismiss this claim as bogus, freeamp, mpg321, and friends must go to non-free at least. -- Robbe signature.ng Description: PGP signature
Re: standard fonts and euro
On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 04:58:21AM -0400, Wolfgang Sourdeau wrote: > I am converting all of my system to ISO-8859-15 and I notice that just > the "fixed" font has a 8859-15. It would be great to have standard > fonts such as Times, Helvetica, ... be compatible with this encoding. [...] > Now, it seems that the fonts coming with XFree86 are copyrighted by > Adobe. So what are the alternatives for us ? 1) All of the fonts in the xfree86 source package are freely licensed. (N.B., this is not the case with the upstream XFree86 source tarballs.) 2) Markus Kuhn has, I believe, extended the coverage of all the 75dpi and 100dpi fonts to include ISO 8859-15 and a whole lot more. This work is presently in XFree86's CVS HEAD branch and will be part of 4.1.x. So, if you can hold out a little longer, you'll get your wish with no labor on your part. -- G. Branden Robinson | Debian GNU/Linux|If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws [EMAIL PROTECTED] |will @goH7OjBd7*dnfk=http://www.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpXtWMy5T0AN.pgp Description: PGP signature
standard fonts and euro
Hi, I am converting all of my system to ISO-8859-15 and I notice that just the "fixed" font has a 8859-15. It would be great to have standard fonts such as Times, Helvetica, ... be compatible with this encoding. Now, it seems that the fonts coming with XFree86 are copyrighted by Adobe. So what are the alternatives for us ? Could we, for example, take the 8859-1 and modify it ? Can we create an new helvetica, have it named "helvetica" too (a couple of font vendors have an "helvetica" in their catalog). Or, worse, do we have to create a new font with a new name and just have some aliases for them? Say we create a new font, can we have a look (zooming or viewing in a font editor) at those fonts in order to avoid efforts ? Or, do we have to sing the free software song and make a revolution to abolish copyright ? W.
Re: USA crypto rules and libssl-dependent packages
On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 11:12:34PM -0400, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote: > On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 10:10:30PM -0400, Brian Ristuccia wrote: > > > > Choice 3 is best. People who live in countries where the use of cryptography > > is restricted are probably subject to being arbitrarily jailed or murdered > > by their state's government anyway. Going out of your way to provide > > crippled crypto-neutered versions of things only validates such sillyness. > > > What in the world do you mean? I don't think France has arbitrary atrocities > by the government like you described, and I'm not sure if this is still true, > but at least until recently crypto was prohibited there. > France's restrictions on crypto use went away back in 1999. Have a look at http://cwis.kub.nl/~frw/people/koops/lawsurvy.htm and http://cwis.kub.nl/~frw/people/koops/cls-dom.gif for information on places with domestic crypto restrictions. Most of these places don't have spectacular human rights records. China, for example, uses tanks against its own civilians and keeps prisoners of conscience. In a number of the old Soviet states, people with unpopular political views used to disappear in the middle of the night, never to be seen again. -- Brian Ristuccia [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unidentified subject!
All right, this is getting silly. I just talked to my brother who got a letter to the editor published in the Economist. He didn't sign a single thing, and there are no disclaimers. The Economist is based in England, but it has offices in many countries. That subjects them to almost every conceivable jurisdiction, and they still don't seem to worry about it. They archive everything. They charge for it. They even edited the letter!!! My vote is to change nothing. If the Economist, who has far more money to worry about these things than we do, doesn't worry, neither should debian. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
