On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, Frank Küster wrote:
> Don Armstrong debian.org> writes:
> > Then why distribute the original PDFs at all in that case?
>
> Because the purpose of the document is to show the differences
> between several (free as well as non-free) fonts, and help the user
> make a choice.
So
Don Armstrong debian.org> writes:
>
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, Norbert Preining wrote:
> > On Mo, 19 Nov 2007, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > > > - the source is present, no freedom is taken: The document is present,
> > > > the source code.
> > > > - the pdf can be regenerated albeit with minor quality
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007, Charles Plessy wrote:
> - There is no difference between a file for which the original
>author never publically published intermediate steps in its
>creation, and a file for wihch an intermediate has removed source
>code or formatting instructions that have been pu
Le Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 02:28:48PM -0800, Don Armstrong a écrit :
>
> You'll note that I don't say anything about what you say the source
> is. I talk about what the author *uses*. Since you're not the author,
> and it's apparently obvious, even to you, that the PDFs came from tex
> source, that's
* Norbert Preining <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071119 17:28]:
[liberally snipped]
>
> And it matters to me that people can get optimal typographic quality.
>
> So either we have to distribute crippled versions of many documents,
> crippled only in the sense that yes, all the information/text is there,
>
On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 10:52:21PM +0100, Norbert Preining <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
was heard to say:
> On Mo, 19 Nov 2007, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > If the author uses the pdf, it's the pdf. If the author uses the tex,
>
> Umpf, how do you proof/ensure that the source of a pdf is the pdf?
> I hope you
On 11208 March 1977, Norbert Preining wrote:
> Do the DFSG apply to design???
The DFSG apply to stuff thats put into our archive.
And you know, our SC states "Debian will remain 100% free", it doesnt
say Free Software.
> Well, we are doomed to ship crippled variants of beautiful documents.
Peo
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, Norbert Preining wrote:
> On Mo, 19 Nov 2007, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > If the author uses the pdf, it's the pdf. If the author uses the tex,
>
> Umpf, how do you proof/ensure that the source of a pdf is the pdf? I
> hope you don't trust the "PDF Producer" field and similar?
Y
Norbert Preining <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Argg, yes, here we are again. What matters to me is that a user can use
> the INFORMATION in the document, i.e. the actual source and use it in
> case he makes a derived work.
>
> And it matters to me that people can get optimal typographic quality.
>
On Mo, 19 Nov 2007, Don Armstrong wrote:
> If the author uses the pdf, it's the pdf. If the author uses the tex,
Umpf, how do you proof/ensure that the source of a pdf is the pdf?
I hope you don't trust the "PDF Producer" field and similar?
So, we are settled, I could - just for the sake of discu
On Mo, 19 Nov 2007, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Of course, that free to use and distribute is not sufficient for Debian
> main. They would also have to grant a license to create derivative works
> and distribute those derivative works, including the derivative work of
Argg, yes, here we are again. What
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, Norbert Preining wrote:
> On Mo, 19 Nov 2007, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> > I think we need to make a difference here if upstream's original
> > document is the pdf - or if the pdf was created from xml/tex/... source.
> > It's not common to create documentations as pdf file in pdfed
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, Norbert Preining wrote:
> On Mo, 19 Nov 2007, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > > - the source is present, no freedom is taken: The document is present,
> > > the source code.
> > > - the pdf can be regenerated albeit with minor quality.
> >
> > Thats different to "relies on not-avai
Norbert Preining <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mo, 19 Nov 2007, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> In the absence of an explicit copyright license, Debian has generally
>> taken the conservative position that just because something is
>> available for download doesn't grant an implicit license, and hence
>
On Mo, 19 Nov 2007, Russ Allbery wrote:
> In the absence of an explicit copyright license, Debian has generally
> taken the conservative position that just because something is available
> for download doesn't grant an implicit license, and hence doesn't mean
> that you can redistribute it or make
Norbert Preining <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mo, 19 Nov 2007, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Norbert Preining:
>>> These fonts are not the full fonts, but sub-setted. Otherwise type
>>> companies would NEVER allow any distribution of pdfs with their fonts.
>>> But they do.
>> But this doesn't me
* Norbert Preining:
> On Mo, 19 Nov 2007, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> > These fonts are not the full fonts, but sub-setted. Otherwise type
>> > companies would NEVER allow any distribution of pdfs with their fonts.
>> > But they do.
>>
>> But this doesn't mean that you are allowed to extract those s
On Mo, 19 Nov 2007, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > These fonts are not the full fonts, but sub-setted. Otherwise type
> > companies would NEVER allow any distribution of pdfs with their fonts.
> > But they do.
>
> But this doesn't mean that you are allowed to extract those subsets, put
Sorry, this is
On Mo, 19 Nov 2007, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> I think we need to make a difference here if upstream's original
> document is the pdf - or if the pdf was created from xml/tex/... source.
> It's not common to create documentations as pdf file in pdfedit or Adobe
> Acrobat, but it may happen, and then th
> Well, I still think that there is a difference between a PDF file and a
> binary executable, and that in any case, a PDF file is not a "program"
> in the same sense as the commands and applications we use, but since
> this discussion already happened before, I will not try to change the
> mind o
* Norbert Preining:
> On Mo, 19 Nov 2007, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> The embedded fonts are still restricted, so it has to go into non-free
>
> These fonts are not the full fonts, but sub-setted. Otherwise type
> companies would NEVER allow any distribution of pdfs with their fonts.
> But they do.
On Mo, 19 Nov 2007, Florian Weimer wrote:
> The embedded fonts are still restricted, so it has to go into non-free
These fonts are not the full fonts, but sub-setted. Otherwise type
companies would NEVER allow any distribution of pdfs with their fonts.
But they do.
Best wishes
Norbert
* Norbert Preining:
> What if upstream ships a pdf AND the source, but the generation of the
> pdf relies on not-available fonts.
>
> I would still ship this pdf into my Debian package out of the following
> reasons:
The embedded fonts are still restricted, so it has to go into non-free
(perhaps
Hi Jörg,
On Mo, 19 Nov 2007, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > - the source is present, no freedom is taken: The document is present,
> > the source code.
> > - the pdf can be regenerated albeit with minor quality.
>
> Thats different to "relies on not-available fonts".
> Relies == cant be build without
Le Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 10:46:14AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert a écrit :
> On 11208 March 1977, Charles Plessy wrote:
>
> > - despite the absence of latex sources one is allowed to take a
> >html, pdf or ps editor and modify the old documentation in the
> >.orig.tar.gz under the terms of the LGP
On 11208 March 1977, Norbert Preining wrote:
> Other questions arising from this:
> What if upstream ships a pdf AND the source, but the generation of the
> pdf relies on not-available fonts.
If you know it -> contrib. (And one should know, as one should try
rebuilding it at least once).
> I wo
On 11208 March 1977, Charles Plessy wrote:
> - despite the absence of latex sources one is allowed to take a
>html, pdf or ps editor and modify the old documentation in the
>.orig.tar.gz under the terms of the LGPL;
"Despite the absence of c source one is allowed to take a .so file and a
On Mo, 19 Nov 2007, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > - the pdf can be regenerated albeit with minor quality.
> > - shipping the higher quality document helps the user more than shipping
> > a lower quality document
>
> Why would the XML-based document be lower quality? If dblatex is used
> for genera
Le lundi 19 novembre 2007 à 08:08 +0100, Norbert Preining a écrit :
> - the pdf can be regenerated albeit with minor quality.
> - shipping the higher quality document helps the user more than shipping
> a lower quality document
Why would the XML-based document be lower quality? If dblatex is use
Hi all,
this is a nice and good discussion, I want to link in because there are
other things awaiting here ...
On Mo, 19 Nov 2007, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Now that I have a XML source that is almost equivalent to the latex one,
> I could generate html, pdf and ps replacements to the existing
> do
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, Charles Plessy wrote:
- despite the absence of latex sources one is allowed to take a
html, pdf or ps editor and modify the old documentation in the
.orig.tar.gz under the terms of the LGPL;
Fine.
- the content of the source-orphan files is available in another sourc
Le Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 04:29:36PM +, Joerg Jaspert a écrit :
> Hi Maintainer,
>
> rejected, im missing the source for the files in doc/* (if you look at
> them its pretty clear that its LaTeX source).
Hi Joerg,
I would like to discuss this on -devel, because I think that the issue
of these
32 matches
Mail list logo
