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 [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 [was: Bug#91856: Hello]
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 currently have. [...] BR Without getting too much into whys and wherefores, I'll note that BR many of the arguments people use for a more lax interpretation of BR "freeness" on things like fonts, music, and artwork are the same BR ones that Daniel J. Bernstein uses to justify the non-free BR license on most (all?) of the software he writes. As you can imagine, the inclusion of the Lucidux fonts into the XFree86 source tree didn't go without a fair amount of hesitation. We negociated the license with Charles Bigelow for a good six months (discussion was significantly hindered by the excruciatingly slow speed of the Earth's rotation -- Chuck is in California, I'm in Europe). At first, Chuck was thinking of allowing us to redistribute his fonts only if nobody was making a profit, clearly something we couldn't accept. We finally came to the conclusion that there is only one issue that was not negociable for Charles Bigelow and Kris Holmes -- the issue of artistic integrity of the fonts. We did, of course, try to argue that people typically do not make gratuitious modifications to Free software, and that the Free software community has, with a few exceptions, been pretty good at filtering out broken versions of software. Chuck was not willing to risk it. 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, thanks to YY), we agreed that there is no reason whatsoever why we should need to modify them in the foreseeable future, and decided to include these fonts in our tree. I believe that Chuck's attitude in the matter is typical of that of most font designers. Thus, I am firmly convinced that as Free Software becomes better known in the font design community, we will receive donations of more high-quality fonts, and that these are likely to come under terms similar to those of the BH Lucidux licence. Thus, I would be very keen on seeing a carefully-written exception for fonts included in the DFSG. As you can see, the arguments above are of a purely pragmatic and technical nature (as typical of XFree86). I am not sufficiently familiar with the Debian project to understand whether you wish to be guided by considerations of this sort, or whether ideological considerations are more important. BR Juliusz, I hope we can agree to disagree on this issue. We've been doing so for almost two years now, and thankfully both of us have managed to keep it on polite terms. It goes without saying that I defer to your opinion in all matters related to Debian packaging of X, even where I disagree with your opinions. Regards, Juliusz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG and fonts [was: Bug#91856: Hello]
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 unmodifiable, that were put there knowing that) What are they? They need serious bugs filed against them. e.g. doc-rfc ? -- James -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG and fonts [was: Bug#91856: Hello]
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 the software's modified status, etc. Would it be poor etiquette to forward a digest of this discussion to Charles Bigelow? BR The philosophical tenets at issue are whether freedom to modify BR what is installed one's computer is valuable in and of itself, and BR whether being able to share my modification with my friends, BR family, co-workers, etc. is a value. Right. This is what I tried to express when, in my previous mail, I contrasted technical and pragmatic issues with ideological ones. BR [we] ensure that Debian packages are highly cooperative with each BR other and well-integrated, and we have made many efforts over the BR years to construct infrastructure that permits them to be so. As a user of Debian, I am well aware of this. (Yet Another Happy Customer). BR However, I suggest you formulate the wording you would like to BR see, join the debian-project mailing list, see if you can recruit BR some backing for your position, and (if you are not a Debian BR Developer) locate someone who is willing to submit it as a General BR Resolution, at which time it can be handled on the debian-vote BR list. It was a conscious decision that I should not join the Debian project. There is only so much time that I can spend on Free Software, and I am not willing to have the duties of a Debian maintainer cut on my work upstream. Thank you for your suggestion, Branden, but this is way more than what I am willing to do in Debian. I can only hope that somebody more involved within Debian than I am will agree with me and go through the necessary process; failing that, I hope that somebody, perhaps even you, will get the fonts under discussion into Non-Free. Regards, Juliusz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG and fonts [was: Bug#91856: Hello]
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 problem, because they are still not free fonts. Indeed, it makes the problem *worse* by making it less likely that free fonts will get written. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG and fonts [was: Bug#91856: Hello]
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 currently have. [...] BR Without getting too much into whys and wherefores, I'll note that BR many of the arguments people use for a more lax interpretation of BR freeness on things like fonts, music, and artwork are the same BR ones that Daniel J. Bernstein uses to justify the non-free BR license on most (all?) of the software he writes. As you can imagine, the inclusion of the Lucidux fonts into the XFree86 source tree didn't go without a fair amount of hesitation. We negociated the license with Charles Bigelow for a good six months (discussion was significantly hindered by the excruciatingly slow speed of the Earth's rotation -- Chuck is in California, I'm in Europe). At first, Chuck was thinking of allowing us to redistribute his fonts only if nobody was making a profit, clearly something we couldn't accept. We finally came to the conclusion that there is only one issue that was not negociable for Charles Bigelow and Kris Holmes -- the issue of artistic integrity of the fonts. We did, of course, try to argue that people typically do not make gratuitious modifications to Free software, and that the Free software community has, with a few exceptions, been pretty good at filtering out broken versions of software. Chuck was not willing to risk it. 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, thanks to YY), we agreed that there is no reason whatsoever why we should need to modify them in the foreseeable future, and decided to include these fonts in our tree. I believe that Chuck's attitude in the matter is typical of that of most font designers. Thus, I am firmly convinced that as Free Software becomes better known in the font design community, we will receive donations of more high-quality fonts, and that these are likely to come under terms similar to those of the BH Lucidux licence. Thus, I would be very keen on seeing a carefully-written exception for fonts included in the DFSG. As you can see, the arguments above are of a purely pragmatic and technical nature (as typical of XFree86). I am not sufficiently familiar with the Debian project to understand whether you wish to be guided by considerations of this sort, or whether ideological considerations are more important. BR Juliusz, I hope we can agree to disagree on this issue. We've been doing so for almost two years now, and thankfully both of us have managed to keep it on polite terms. It goes without saying that I defer to your opinion in all matters related to Debian packaging of X, even where I disagree with your opinions. Regards, Juliusz
Re: DFSG and fonts [was: Bug#91856: Hello]
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, thanks to YY), we agreed that there is no reason whatsoever why we should need to modify them in the foreseeable future, and decided to include these fonts in our tree. Does it cover Latin-3? If it doesn't, then there's a number of characters that could be added in minutes with the right tools to provide for support of Esperanto, Maltese and other languages, but we can't, because of the license. Even if it covers Latin-3, there's many languages written out there in the Latin script where this extra letter or that extra letter would allow us to support the language with the font; but we can't because of the license. I believe that Chuck's attitude in the matter is typical of that of most font designers. Currently. That attitude was also true for many programmers at one time who now write free software. I hope a similar change happens with font designers. Thus, I am firmly convinced that as Free Software becomes better known in the font design community, we will receive donations of more high-quality fonts, and that these are likely to come under terms similar to those of the BH Lucidux licence. Thus, I would be very keen on seeing a carefully-written exception for fonts included in the DFSG. As you can see, the arguments above are of a purely pragmatic and technical nature (as typical of XFree86). I am not sufficiently familiar with the Debian project to understand whether you wish to be guided by considerations of this sort, or whether ideological considerations are more important. 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), I find the same reasons for Free fonts as Free software. We need the ability to modify fonts - to add characters, to fix bugs, to make personal choices on characters, to convert to new formats (what if X 5.0 only supports OpenType and BDF fonts, and YY isn't interested in converting them?) - or we lose a lot of flexibility (a more ideological person would say freedom). -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored. - Joseph_Greg
Re: DFSG and fonts [was: Bug#91856: Hello]
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. [...] We finally came to the conclusion that there is only one issue that was not negociable for Charles Bigelow and Kris Holmes -- the issue of artistic integrity of the fonts. We did, of course, try to argue that people typically do not make gratuitious modifications to Free software, and that the Free software community has, with a few exceptions, been pretty good at filtering out broken versions of software. Chuck was not willing to risk it. There are lots of ways to preserve artistic integrity. It's perfectly compatible with the DFSG to, for instance, require that modified versions change the name of the relevant (font|executable|data file), to include a disclaimer in the copyright info about the software's modified status, etc. Forbidding modification entirely (or forbidding redistribution of modified versions), however, is pretty clearly against the spirit and letter of the DFSG. 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, thanks to YY), we agreed that there is no reason whatsoever why we should need to modify them in the foreseeable future, and decided to include these fonts in our tree. I'm not trying to claim that the fonts aren't lovely and useful. That isn't the issue. The philosophical tenets at issue are whether freedom to modify what is installed one's computer is valuable in and of itself, and whether being able to share my modification with my friends, family, co-workers, etc. is a value. 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. I believe that Chuck's attitude in the matter is typical of that of most font designers. Thus, I am firmly convinced that as Free Software becomes better known in the font design community, we will receive donations of more high-quality fonts, and that these are likely to come under terms similar to those of the BH Lucidux licence. Thus, I would be very keen on seeing a carefully-written exception for fonts included in the DFSG. It would be irresponsible of me to reject such a thing before I see its exact wording, but given your description of what you'd like to see, I don't think I'd be able to stand in support of it as a Debian developer. As you can see, the arguments above are of a purely pragmatic and technical nature (as typical of XFree86). I am not sufficiently familiar with the Debian project to understand whether you wish to be guided by considerations of this sort, or whether ideological considerations are more important. Perhaps I've gotten into too many arguments on issues like this before, but this sounds like a false alternative. One look at the Debian Policy Manual will tell you that we are extremely cognizant of pragmatic and technical matters; we are constantly working to ensure that Debian packages are highly cooperative with each other and well-integrated, and we have made many efforts over the years to construct infrastructure that permits them to be so. The very fact that Debian has a couple of ideological documents does not, in my opinion, serve to render everyone in the Project an ideologue. (That said, we certainly have our share of ideologues, but so does XFree86; they exist in every group of significant size.) We've been doing so for almost two years now, and thankfully both of us have managed to keep it on polite terms. It goes without saying that I defer to your opinion in all matters related to Debian packaging of X, even where I disagree with your opinions. Modifying the DFSG is a very difficult process, requiring a substantial supermajority. It hasn't ever yet been done. Furthermore, unfortunately, some people in the Project argue vigorously that the Constitution unambigiously permits it, some argue that the Constitution unambigiously forbids, it, and some argue that the Constitution is ambiguous on this point. Nevertheless, I don't want to attempt to restrain you from persuading the Debian Project to adopt your point of view on this issue. I don't at present recall if you are a Debian Developer; if not, you cannot submit a General Resolution, which is how we handle proposals of this sort. However, I suggest you formulate the wording you would like to see, join the debian-project mailing list, see if you can recruit some backing for your position, and (if you are not a Debian Developer) locate someone who is willing to
Re: DFSG and fonts [was: Bug#91856: Hello]
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) What are they? They need serious bugs filed against them. -- G. Branden Robinson | If you wish to strive for peace of soul, Debian GNU/Linux| then believe; if you wish to be a [EMAIL PROTECTED] | devotee of truth, then inquire. http://www.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Friedrich Nietzsche pgpqfYmKgXS8N.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: DFSG and fonts [was: Bug#91856: Hello]
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 unmodifiable, that were put there knowing that) What are they? They need serious bugs filed against them. e.g. doc-rfc ? -- James
Re: DFSG and fonts [was: Bug#91856: Hello]
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 did discuss that with Chuck. Chuck agrees with us, and the Lucidux license does explicitly allow adding new composite glyphs from glyphs that already exist in the font, as long as you do it in a manner that does not perturb the existing hinting. (In more technical terms: you are allowed to create new glyphs using the charstring seac operator. Other ways of creating new glyphs are not allowed, as they require careful use of hint substitution instructions, something few developers are competent to do.) In addition, I'd like to point out that addition of composites can be done above the layer of the font file; please check ``info ogonkify'' on a machine with a2ps installed. DS Currently. That attitude was also true for many programmers at one DS time who now write free software. I hope a similar change happens DS with font designers. 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?). 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. Regards, Juliusz
Re: DFSG and fonts [was: Bug#91856: Hello]
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 the software's modified status, etc. Would it be poor etiquette to forward a digest of this discussion to Charles Bigelow? BR The philosophical tenets at issue are whether freedom to modify BR what is installed one's computer is valuable in and of itself, and BR whether being able to share my modification with my friends, BR family, co-workers, etc. is a value. Right. This is what I tried to express when, in my previous mail, I contrasted technical and pragmatic issues with ideological ones. BR [we] ensure that Debian packages are highly cooperative with each BR other and well-integrated, and we have made many efforts over the BR years to construct infrastructure that permits them to be so. As a user of Debian, I am well aware of this. (Yet Another Happy Customer). BR However, I suggest you formulate the wording you would like to BR see, join the debian-project mailing list, see if you can recruit BR some backing for your position, and (if you are not a Debian BR Developer) locate someone who is willing to submit it as a General BR Resolution, at which time it can be handled on the debian-vote BR list. It was a conscious decision that I should not join the Debian project. There is only so much time that I can spend on Free Software, and I am not willing to have the duties of a Debian maintainer cut on my work upstream. Thank you for your suggestion, Branden, but this is way more than what I am willing to do in Debian. I can only hope that somebody more involved within Debian than I am will agree with me and go through the necessary process; failing that, I hope that somebody, perhaps even you, will get the fonts under discussion into Non-Free. Regards, Juliusz
Re: DFSG and fonts [was: Bug#91856: Hello]
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|executable|data file), to include a disclaimer in the BR copyright info about the software's modified status, etc. Would it be poor etiquette to forward a digest of this discussion to Charles Bigelow? Not at all. I'm be more than happy to discuss this with him and see if there is a possible license that satisfies both the DFSG and Bigelow and Holmes's artistic integrity. The only part of the Lucidux font license at issue is the following: The Font Software may not be modified, altered, or added to, and in particular the designs of glyphs or characters in the Fonts may not be modified nor may additional glyphs or characters be added to the Fonts, except that composite characters composed of two or more characters in the Fonts may be created using the seac (Standard Encoding Accented Character) Type 1 operator. If it were the case that the font could be modified, altered, or added to in any respect other than the above, *BUT* the font would then have to be referred to by a different name (while still maintaining the BH copyright notice and license terms, and providing prominent notice of the font's modified status), that, for instance, would satisfy the DFSG. The Apache Software License does something similar and has been accepted satisfying the DFSG for many years. That's just one possibility. With a bit of imagination I'm sure there are many others. It was a conscious decision that I should not join the Debian project. There is only so much time that I can spend on Free Software, and I am not willing to have the duties of a Debian maintainer cut on my work upstream. I can certainly sympathize with that. Just the task of packaging XFree86 for Debian seems to expand to consume all resources I make available for it. Thank you for your suggestion, Branden, but this is way more than what I am willing to do in Debian. I can only hope that somebody more involved within Debian than I am will agree with me and go through the necessary process; failing that, I hope that somebody, perhaps even you, will get the fonts under discussion into Non-Free. Since this mail is going to the debian-x mailing list (among other places), let me publicly ask for a volunteer. It should be a pretty straightforward process to package these fonts. Retrieve the following directory from an official XFree86 X402src-2.tgz file: xc/fonts/scaled/Type1 Delete the following files: Copyright c0419bt_.afm c0419bt_.pfb c0582bt_.afm c0582bt_.pfb c0583bt_.afm c0583bt_.pfb c0611bt_.afm c0611bt_.pfb c0632bt_.afm c0632bt_.pfb c0633bt_.afm c0633bt_.pfb c0648bt_.afm c0648bt_.pfb c0649bt_.afm c0649bt_.pfb cursor.pfa That should leave you with: COPYRIGHT.BH COPYRIGHT.IBM Imakefile UTBI.afm UTBI.pfa UTB_.afm UTB_.pfa UTI_.afm UTI_.pfa UTRG.afm UTRG.pfa cour.afm cour.pfa courb.afm courb.pfa courbi.afm courbi.pfa couri.afm couri.pfa lcdxmo.afm lcdxmo.pfa lcdxmr.afm lcdxmr.pfa lcdxro.afm lcdxro.pfa lcdxrr.afm lcdxrr.pfa lcdxso.afm lcdxso.pfa lcdxsr.afm lcdxsr.pfa fonts.scale Edit fonts.scale and the Imakefile to remove all references to the c0* and cursor fonts. That should be just about it. Please be sure to follow the Debian X font policy when creating the package. I suggest xfonts-scalable-nonfree for the package name. -- G. Branden Robinson | One man's magic is another man's Debian GNU/Linux| engineering. Supernatural is a [EMAIL PROTECTED] | null word. http://www.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein pgpmPAuLJ7V4w.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: DFSG and fonts [was: Bug#91856: Hello]
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 problem, because they are still not free fonts. Indeed, it makes the problem *worse* by making it less likely that free fonts will get written. Thomas
