Daniel Leidert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I hope you can help with some ideas and also clear a few of my
questions. I'm not a lawyer, so I hope, you can give a few hints. I'm
writing manpages for the proprietary ATI driver, which are included in
the Debian package. You can find the
Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Debian decides to distribute works containing your font. The
original upstream disappears. A bug is discovered in the font, and
Debian needs to fix it.
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, Marco d'Itri wrote:
Yes, and this is considered a
Marco d'Itri wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Won't this forbid anyone (but the original copyright holder) to fix bugs
or misfeatures in the font?
Not if they choose a different name.
For a font bug-for-bug compatibility may be very important to preserve
correct rendering of docuements.
On Jan 30, Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not if they choose a different name.
For a font bug-for-bug compatibility may be very important to preserve
correct rendering of docuements.
You do, of course, mean preserve _incorrect_ rendering of documents ;-)
Yes.
--
ciao,
Marco
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, Frank Küster wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, Don Armstrong wrote:
The same argument applies equally well to programs. We should be
intelligent enough in our fixing of bugs in fonts not to break
existing documents,
That's plain impossible. A bug in a font could be a wrong
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
On Jan 30, Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not if they choose a different name.
For a font bug-for-bug compatibility may be very important to preserve
correct rendering of docuements.
You do, of course, mean preserve _incorrect_ rendering
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This exact argument can be made to apply to programs. We as
distributors (or our users as users) should be able to make the
determination whether it's appropriate to break compatibility to fix
the bug, or keep compatibility and live with the bug. A
Am Montag, den 30.01.2006, 00:42 -0800 schrieb Walter Landry:
Daniel Leidert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hope you can help with some ideas and also clear a few of my
questions. I'm not a lawyer, so I hope, you can give a few hints. I'm
writing manpages for the proprietary ATI driver,
On 1/29/06, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, Raul Miller wrote:
You can still claim that the court in question does not have
jurisdiction over the parties.
You can claim that the moon is cheese too, if you want.[1] The point
is that in order for the court to
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 22:17:47 -0800 (PST) Walter Landry wrote:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Here's the attribution version:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/scotland/legalcode
6.5 This Licence is governed by the law of Scotland and the parties
accept the
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 02:25:34 -0800 Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, Frank Küster wrote:
[...]
if you've got a font that is in wide use and regarded as stable,
changing the kerning is a design decision and should in fact change
the name under which the font is available to the user
Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This discussion seems to have gone into the weeds about WHY someone
would want to make a change and whether Debian is able to make such
changes reasonably.
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, Frank Küster wrote:
Well, only in part. A font that you can't rely on is mostly
olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I personnaly think that Debian would do better to defend free software if
there were in accordance to the FSF.
I personally think that the FSF would do much, much better at defending free
software if they operated in accordance with Debian. Debian-legal has
Daniel Leidert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Montag, den 30.01.2006, 00:42 -0800 schrieb Walter Landry:
Daniel Leidert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, the end of the file says
(c) Copyright 2002,2003 by ATI Technologies Inc. All rights reserved
which means that you can't use the
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 04:39:33PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
If it's not a copyleft:
* the Scotland-venue clause in the original license only applies to claims
against the original licensor of the original software
* the French forker uses a license without that clause for his own
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:34:25 -0500 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I personnaly think that Debian would do better to defend free
software if
there were in accordance to the FSF.
I personally think that the FSF would do much, much better at
defending free
On 1/31/06, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I personnaly think that Debian would do better to defend free software if
there were in accordance to the FSF.
I personally think that the FSF would do much, much better at defending free
software if they
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 12:52:00PM +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
On 1/31/06, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I personnaly think that Debian would do better to defend free software if
there were in accordance to the FSF.
I personally think that
18 matches
Mail list logo
