On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, Frank Küster wrote:
Don Armstrong don at 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 don at 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.
* 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,
but
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 used
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 generating the
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 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 would
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 LGPL;
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 them.
* 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
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:
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.
But
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 of the
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 they
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 wrong.
* 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 subsets, put
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 mean that you are
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 any
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
doesn't
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-available fonts.
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 pdfedit or
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 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
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.
So
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?
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.
People
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 don't
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
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
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
30 matches
Mail list logo
