Nicolas Spalinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > MJ Ray wrote: > > As explained repeatedly, users should not have to configure font > > substitution for every new font > > Mmm, What? > > The configuration of external font substitution systems like > fontconfig are outside the scope of the license. > > See the updated FAQ entry 2.8
which includes the claim: > [...] Font substitution systems like fontconfig, or application-level > font fallback configuration within OpenOffice.org or Scribus, will > also get very confused if the name of the font they are configured to > substitute to actually refers to another physical font on the user's > hard drive. It will help everyone if Original Versions and Modified > Versions can easily be distinguished from one another and from other > derivatives. The substitution mechanism itself is outside the scope of the > license. Users can always manually change a font reference in a document > or set up some kind of substitution at a higher level but at the lower > level the fonts themselves have to respect the Reserved Font Name(s) > requirement to prevent ambiguity. [...] which seems to confirm that users have to configure their own font substitutions for every damned font! This isn't a freedom question: it's an ease-of-use question, so can we take this part off debian-legal if continued, please? > Since when is a diff.gz understood as a derivative? Isn't it obviously derived? Please explain how you would create a diff.gz for a font without knowing the expressions used in the orig.tar.gz. > [...] Ever wondered why we had so few free/open fonts until there was a > good way to reach out to the font designer community with something > which makes sense to them? Yes. I felt it was mostly an education problem, not a case of there being anything wrong with GPL and MIT/Expat styles for fonts. [...] > I'll remind you of the current Debian policy which already has something > about not creating namespace chaos: > http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-customized-programs.html#s11.8.5 > > "Font packages must not provide alias names for the fonts they include > which collide with alias names already in use by fonts already packaged. > [...]" That looks like it comes from a time before defoma, fontconfig and weighted substitution. When is it from? Should it be updated? > Even the classic 'knuthian' TeX license and its children have similar > requirements. Please take a look at the latest LPPL as a better licence. > Please understand that this requirement makes sense. I don't agree and asking nicely isn't enough to change that. Sorry. [...] > As you know the OFL has been presented at AtypI and we have received > constructive feedback from the design community. > > Seriously, do you really think we'd add such a clause if it wasn't needed? Sorry, but I think you might (it is OFL's USP, after all) and I think the consultation results would have been published long ago if it they justified the continued inclusion. [...] > As for the removal, have you read Victor Gaultney's answer on this? > > To quote him on OFL-discuss: > "I do understand your point, and even agree that trademark should be > enough. But in practice it's not. RFN is a critical feature of the OFL, > and does not stop designers from declaring their trademarks in addition > to protecting the name through RFN. So people can fully use both." Yes and seeing it as a 'critical feature' is why it won't happen until after some font designers get burnt by it. Hopefully that will never happen, but the door is open. [...] > Well, I'd say your goals of contacting the FSF behind our backs to get a > license-list removal isn't terribly helpful. Erm, I questioned FSF on their interpretation and I mentioned that in a few places in public. Sorry if you missed it, but it wasn't getting a removal (I don't hold any power over FSF), wasn't behind anyone's back and wasn't a goal itself. The goal is more free software, silly. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]