> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 03:21:25PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > > For a font, this is not quite true. Many fonts in Debian are the > > > output of little languages or the equivalent. So we have no problem > > > with the METAFONT-generated fonts. IIUC, there is similarly no > > > problem with Truetype fonts. > > > > P.S. in this case the source code for the program obviously includes the > > source code to that little language, if we want the font to be 100% free. > > If you have some other interpretation, please be more specific.
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 04:24:45PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Huh? The little language is a language, not a program. Do you mean > the source code to the program? Or the source code to the language > interpreter? Or both? I mean both. For a metafont generated font to be 100% free, both the compiler (metafont) must be free, and the font itself must be free. The source code for the font is written in the language compiled by the compiler. > As I said, the METAFONT-generated fonts (if we have the METAFONT > programs) are no problem. See how easy that was? Ok, I missed the "no problem" part -- reading too fast -- sorry for the aside. > > P.P.S. I find it extremely ironic that one of the more vocal supporters > > for the "get rid of non-free" meme is now arguing [rather vehemently] > > against a somewhat milder implementation of that meme than was originally > > proposed. > > It's only ironic if you want to see everything on a political > spectrum. That's not only false, it's confusing. > I think that we should not distribute non-free on Debian; > that is an entirely separate question from whether a particular thing > is or is not free. > > Nor am I arguing for a milder implementation of anything. All I have > said is that it is inappropriate to apply the GPL's definition of > sourcecode unreflectively. That definition is not, and never has > been, a part of the DFSG, and we should not make it so now. Once again: it's meaningless to reject a definition if you're not going to provide a better one in its place. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
