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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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,
18 matches
Mail list logo
