Re: DFSG and fonts [was: Bug#91856: Hello]
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 YY isn't DS interested in converting them? I realise that's not what your point was about, but I'll mention that I am personnally committed to improving the Type 1 support in future versions of XFree86. I don't know about the specific font, and if this can be applied to, but in general, fonts are useful for many softwares not limited to XFree86. For example, we use some DFSG free fonts for TeX, GhostScript, and X by converting them into various formats. If the license of the specific font does not allow us to use it in such a way, then it is not pleasant for us, and I hope that DFSG-compatible fonts do permit us to use them freely. This is just an opnion from a Debian developer. Regards. -- Taketoshi Sano: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG and fonts
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 12:15:38PM -0400, Stuart Ballard wrote: Speaking of DFSG-free fonts, I hear there is a set of GPL'd TrueType fonts in the OpenOffice distribution. (I also hear that their hinting has problems due to the particular software they were created with, but that's an aside - the license guarantees that someone somewhere can fix them). [...] I'd love to be able to dump the truetype.tar.gz fonts in favor of installing xfonts-openoffice :) If someone does this, I'd like to request that this not be used as the package name, because it doesn't make a lot of sense. I think we should come up with a font naming policy. In the future, "xfonts-*" should probably be a prefix reserved for fonts that are typically rasterized only by an X server or font server. That is the case for PCF, BDF, and (arguably) Speedo fonts, but clearly not so for Type1, Type3, and TrueType fonts. Existing font packages should be grandfathered, of course, but I'd like to start moving towards a more sensible namespace for fonts in Debian, in addition to moving them to more FHS-sensible locations like /usr/share. -- G. Branden Robinson |I suspect Linus wrote that in a Debian GNU/Linux|complicated way only to be able to have [EMAIL PROTECTED] |that comment in there. http://www.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Lars Wirzenius PGP signature
Re: DFSG and fonts [was: Bug#91856: Hello]
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 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 ... Edmund
Re: DFSG and fonts [was: Bug#91856: Hello]
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 not be modified except by the holder of the Copyright under law. As such, NO license is itself able to meet the terms of the DFSG and must be excepted. -- Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED]Free software developer Lucas' Law: Good will always win, because evil hires the _stupid_ engineers. pgpJlW8LXmixE.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: DFSG and fonts [was: Bug#91856: Hello]
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 except by the holder of the Copyright under law. As such, NO license is itself able to meet the terms of the DFSG and must be excepted. You have misunderstood me, I think, and your reasoning is incorrect. Obviously you can't just redistribute someone else's program with a modified licence, but you might want to distribute your own program with a modified version of the GPL. But the first paragraph of the GPL forbids that; you would have to write your own licence from scratch. Most licences do not have a notice saying whether the licence itself may be modified and redistributed, but most licences are short enough that probably nobody cares. The GPL, on the other hand, is a significant work in its own right (nearly 3000 words), and it does have its own copyright notice, in the first paragraph. The GPL is not itself licensed under a free software licence. Edmund
Re: DFSG and fonts [was: Bug#91856: Hello]
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 YY isn't DS interested in converting them? I realise that's not what your point was about, but I'll mention that I am personnally committed to improving the Type 1 support in future versions of XFree86. I don't know about the specific font, and if this can be applied to, but in general, fonts are useful for many softwares not limited to XFree86. For example, we use some DFSG free fonts for TeX, GhostScript, and X by converting them into various formats. If the license of the specific font does not allow us to use it in such a way, then it is not pleasant for us, and I hope that DFSG-compatible fonts do permit us to use them freely. This is just an opnion from a Debian developer. Regards. -- Taketoshi Sano: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG and fonts
Branden Robinson wrote: Underlying the DFSG is the notion that these are important values. Debian does not insist that everyone else in the world share them, or prioritize them as highly as we do. They are, however, very high priorities for our Project. Speaking of DFSG-free fonts, I hear there is a set of GPL'd TrueType fonts in the OpenOffice distribution. (I also hear that their hinting has problems due to the particular software they were created with, but that's an aside - the license guarantees that someone somewhere can fix them). My question is - has anyone packaged or thought about packaging these fonts for Debian? I'm currently using MS's fonts (the truetype.tar.gz provided by Keith Packard on his render page) and although the license is much closer to free than I would have expected from MS, it's still far from the DFSG, and that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Those fonts are one of only about 4 non-dfsg programs on my computer (the others being netscape, java, and oracle). I'd love to be able to dump the truetype.tar.gz fonts in favor of installing xfonts-openoffice :) Stuart.
Re: DFSG and fonts
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 12:15:38PM -0400, Stuart Ballard wrote: Speaking of DFSG-free fonts, I hear there is a set of GPL'd TrueType fonts in the OpenOffice distribution. (I also hear that their hinting has problems due to the particular software they were created with, but that's an aside - the license guarantees that someone somewhere can fix them). [...] I'd love to be able to dump the truetype.tar.gz fonts in favor of installing xfonts-openoffice :) If someone does this, I'd like to request that this not be used as the package name, because it doesn't make a lot of sense. I think we should come up with a font naming policy. In the future, xfonts-* should probably be a prefix reserved for fonts that are typically rasterized only by an X server or font server. That is the case for PCF, BDF, and (arguably) Speedo fonts, but clearly not so for Type1, Type3, and TrueType fonts. Existing font packages should be grandfathered, of course, but I'd like to start moving towards a more sensible namespace for fonts in Debian, in addition to moving them to more FHS-sensible locations like /usr/share. -- G. Branden Robinson |I suspect Linus wrote that in a Debian GNU/Linux|complicated way only to be able to have [EMAIL PROTECTED] |that comment in there. http://www.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Lars Wirzenius pgpkJnq2DsL9J.pgp Description: PGP signature
