Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This discussion seems to have gone into the weeds about WHY someone
would want to make a change and whether Debian is able to make such
changes reasonably.
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, Frank Küster wrote:
Well, only in part. A
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, Frank Küster wrote:
In practice, this means that the version string displayed in the file
log of a LaTeX run will be different, and that the user, or a developer
of a package that uses the work, has the possibility to check for the
version and act accordingly; it does of
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In practice, this means that the version string displayed in the file
log of a LaTeX run will be different, and that the user, or a developer
of a package that uses the work, has the possibility to check for the
version and act accordingly; it does of
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 01:15:06AM -0800, Mark Rafn wrote:
A human can tell the difference if he bothers to look. System software
does not change behavior based on this human identification.
Well, it might: if the software uses the human identification to select
which font to use when
Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Debian decides to distribute works containing your font. The
original upstream disappears. A bug is discovered in the font, and
Debian needs to fix it.
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, Marco d'Itri wrote:
Yes, and this is considered a
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, Frank Küster wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, Don Armstrong wrote:
The same argument applies equally well to programs. We should be
intelligent enough in our fixing of bugs in fonts not to break
existing documents,
That's plain impossible. A bug in a font could be a wrong
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This exact argument can be made to apply to programs. We as
distributors (or our users as users) should be able to make the
determination whether it's appropriate to break compatibility to fix
the bug, or keep compatibility and live with the bug. A
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 02:25:34 -0800 Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, Frank Küster wrote:
[...]
if you've got a font that is in wide use and regarded as stable,
changing the kerning is a design decision and should in fact change
the name under which the font is available to the user
Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This discussion seems to have gone into the weeds about WHY someone
would want to make a change and whether Debian is able to make such
changes reasonably.
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, Frank Küster wrote:
Well, only in part. A font that you can't rely on is mostly
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyway, as you can see there is basically one problematic clause for
inclusion in Debian, and a few other minor issues that should probably
be resolved before font authors start using this license.
Are you sure the naming clause is really that problematic for
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What you're trying to prevent is clear, it's just not necessary to use
a license to do this. Consider the following: Debian decides to
distribute works containing your font. The original upstream
disappears. A bug is discovered in the font, and Debian needs to fix
it. We
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, Marco d'Itri wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Debian decides to distribute works containing your font. The
original upstream disappears. A bug is discovered in the font, and
Debian needs to fix it.
Yes, and this is considered a feature. Usually existing documents
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Debian decides to distribute works containing your font. The
original upstream disappears. A bug is discovered in the font, and
Debian needs to fix it.
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, Marco d'Itri wrote:
Yes, and this is considered a feature. Usually existing documents
should
On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 04:04:44PM -0800, Mark Rafn wrote:
It seems a clear test: if I can't distribute a changed version that
can be dropped into a system without changing other software,
it ain't free.
I'd take this just a little further, in that the user shouldn't have to
change his
[snip]
First off; while I am a Debian Developer, and do have some experience
in auditing licenses for DFSG compliance, I can't make any claims one
way or another as to whether software licensed under such a license
will be acceptable for inclusion in main (main being the part of the
Debian
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006, Nicolas Spalinger wrote:
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person
obtaining a copy of the Font Software, to use, study, copy,
merge, embed, modify, redistribute, and sell modified and
unmodified copies of the Font Software,
On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 09:35:33PM +0100, Nicolas Spalinger wrote:
3) No Modified Version of the Font Software may use the Reserved
Font Name(s), in part or in whole, unless explicit written
permission is granted by the Copyright Holder. This restriction
applies to all
Along with the stix license, there were a few questions asked about
the OFL license as well. We visited the license a while ago, but never
really came to a complete conclusion on it one way or another.
Attached is the license again for reference, along with my own
analysis of it.
Don Armstrong
18 matches
Mail list logo
