On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 09:43:55AM +0800, Leon Brooks wrote: > Ask yourself if Trey would turn down an opportunity to destroy a Linux > distributor while simultaneously portraying them as a thief of intellectual > property. It's nearly Christmas: he'd think Santa had already arrived early! > This is the kind of corporate back-knifing he has specialised in over the > years.
Who the hell is Trey? > Not true. If they weren't trying to restrict distribution, they would simply > have made them Freeware or BSD, no muttering about unchanged distribution. > They distributed them as EXEs, remember, not TTFs or even ZIPs. As if Microsoft would ever license anything that freely, very funny. And they licensed them as self extracting exes so Windows users who don't know anything can easily download, run the install and be done with it. Just about every piece of Windows software is shipped this way. It'd be like saying just because we package things as RPMS for Mandrake that we're trying to stop Debian people from install it. It's just a silly point. > I have another suggestion, too. Surely Microsoft aren't the only company on > the web who have ever distributed good-quality fonts for free? People seem to > be as stuck on that idea - even here - as the general public are on the > concept of there being something besides Windows to install on a PC. > > How about including a wrapper that fetches some safer high-quality fonts? How > about the wrapper (or a different one) fetching not-so-quality lookalike > fonts that give the same appearance and would be good enough for at least 95% > of users out there? Such as? -- Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://ben.reser.org "If you're not making any mistakes, you're flat out not trying hard enough." - Jim Nichols
