On Thu, 2002-07-18 at 03:28, David Carlisle wrote: > > > Additionally, there is the question > > of defining "non-functional" data; some kinds of data, such as fonts, > > have functional impact > > for a system like latex the fonts (or at least their metrics) have as > much impact as the rest of the system. Modifying the font metrics is > even more likely to change the final document layout than changing the > latex macros (most of which are not used in any given document run).
Well, yes. OTOH, substituting pictures can also change layout, and pictures are clearly non-functional data. You may be right; fonts may be too "functional" to waive the DFSG for them. But that's a bridge we'll have to come to at some point, and it affects far more things than just TeX. > > if the time comes to act, CM fonts can be moved to non-free then. > > In that case probably it's best if we just all come back then. > It will be a lot of work finalising the details of a rewrite of LPPL > and if the only benefit of that is that you declare LaTeX suitable for > the free part of Debian, that effort will be completely wasted if TeX > and the fonts are not in the free part. I hope not. Hopefully, the license you craft with our input will be a stronger license, and will more clearly reflect your priorities. I think there have been several cases where we've identified characteristics of your license that do not reflect your stated goals. > I'd like to see LaTeX classed as Free by Debian (because it is Free) > but distributing LaTeX separately from TeX would be non sensical > and lead to massive user confusion. So if TeX and the CM fonts were in > non-free I'd suggest you distribute latex from there as well, even if > latex had a licence that you would be happy to classify as free. Yes. We cover this problem with a section called "contrib", which contains DFSG-free software that depends on non-free software. A lot of Java software falls into this section, for example. So if the LPPL ends up being DFSG-free but TeX is not, we won't take that away from you. > So I don't think we can do anything about the latex licence until > then. (This is a personal response to your comments, Frank may have > different ideas, especially as he's spent a lot of time redrafting > LPPL this last month and is (I thought) almost there as regards > addressing any concerns raised by Debian with the old version.) I haven't seen his response yet, and am looking forward to it. I urge him (and you) to stay engaged if you would, as I think our discussion has been profitable in many ways. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]