Re: Free documents using non-free fonts - can they be in main?
On Mar 5, 2006, at 03:06, Marco d'Itri wrote: The characters in the document are not subject to copyright. Yes, in the U.S. if all alleged computer programness of the font is gone and the glyphs are bitmapped or on paper but is that also true of embedded hinted fonts in PDF? (I thought such embedding is subject to license but foundries generally grant the permission to embed in final-form formats like PDF.) -- Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hsivonen.iki.fi/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Free documents using non-free fonts - can they be in main?
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, from the user's standpoint it's not a just comment out the \usepackage line... Rather, it's a 1. comment out the \usepackage line 2. fix the whole document so that it adapts to the free fonts 3. check if the result is acceptable, otherwise goto 2. Your claim that this is *not* a freedom issue, Honestly, I think this question is irrelevant. The binary version of the document is non-free, therefore I'll put it into tetex-docnon-free, and if we do have the sources, I'm going to put them in the same source package, even if the sources could go to contrib. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
Re: Free documents using non-free fonts - can they be in main?
Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 5, 2006, at 03:06, Marco d'Itri wrote: The characters in the document are not subject to copyright. Yes, in the U.S. if all alleged computer programness of the font is gone and the glyphs are bitmapped or on paper but is that also true of embedded hinted fonts in PDF? (I thought such embedding is subject to license but foundries generally grant the permission to embed in final-form formats like PDF.) AFAIK, if a font is included completely in the PDF doucment, i.e. not subsetted, it's technically possible to extract it again (and even if it is subsetted, you just have to collect enough documents to get all glyphs). So if it is technically possible to extract and reuse the font, but forbidden by the license, this is non-free. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
Re: Free documents using non-free fonts - can they be in main?
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 13:30:26 +0100 Frank Küster wrote: Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, from the user's standpoint it's not a just comment out the \usepackage line... Rather, it's a 1. comment out the \usepackage line 2. fix the whole document so that it adapts to the free fonts 3. check if the result is acceptable, otherwise goto 2. Your claim that this is *not* a freedom issue, Honestly, I think this question is irrelevant. The binary version of the document is non-free, therefore I'll put it into tetex-docnon-free, and if we do have the sources, I'm going to put them in the same source package, even if the sources could go to contrib. When I read your this is not a freedom issue claim, I got the impression you were thinking the binary version of the document could be considered DFSG-free and go in main, even if the used fonts were non-free. That's why I followed up with my counterclaim that it was indeed a freedom issue. If you were already convinced that such a document (compiled from DFSG-free source, but with non-free fonts) does not belong in main, then I must have misunderstood: I apologize. So, to summarize my opinion: A) the document can go in main, *if* it is adapted and rebuilt with DFSG-free fonts B) the document as is (i.e.: with non-free fonts), should *not* be distributed in main, but in non-free instead I would of course prefer option A, but you already stated that it's a pain, so, if you are not willing to do it, we are left with option B... -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpZ26RF4xtSl.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Portaudio] Re: portaudio in Debian, license updates?
Junichi Uekawa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The web page (http://www.portaudio.com/license.html) has the following additional clauses; which should be included in Debian package to clarify: Plain English Interpretation of the License The following is a plain English interpretation of the license. This interpretation is not part of the license and has no legal significance. To understand the full legal implications of the license you should consult the license itself. * You can use PortAudio for free in your projects or applications, even commercial applications. * You do not have to make your own source available as open-source code just because you used PortAudio. * Do not take our copyright information out of the PortAudio source code. * If you fix a bug in PortAudio, please send us the fix. * You cannot sue us if your program fails because of PortAudio. If I'm the only person uncomfortable with the current wording, so be it. Please do add the extra interpretation quote into the Debian packages. Yes. People on d-l seem to think that text that is not legally significant, such as that quote, or things like the preamble to the GPL have no significance. This is entirely untrue. While precedent may not make this clear, the intention of a licence is important. If a court is in doubt as to how the licence is to be interpreted it should look at such text. Such text, especially if included near the licence, has presumably been read by both parties. So if there are tems that are unclear, non-parseable, or part of the licence is self contradictory, it is only reasonable that the clause be interpreted in the manner most directly implied by the explanitory text. Rember that the U.S. Supreme Court will sometimes rule based not on the text of laws, but the intent of the laws. If a court is willing to rule law based on intent rather than text in the case of law, then it most certainly should do so in the case of contracts. Note: IANAL, but the above is just plain common sense. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Free documents using non-free fonts - can they be in main?
I'm just going to note one important point about this whole thing. This is a main/contrib issue, *not* a main/non-free issue. Everyone agrees that the documents which use the non-free fonts are themselves free. The question is whether they depend on the non-free fonts. Suppose for the sake of argument that the documents do depend on the non-free fonts. If the documents are a small part of the overall package, and not essential for the package's functionality, then we allow the documents to be in main anyway. If the entire package depends on the non-free fonts, thenit is supposed to be in contrib. I always felt that the line between main and contrib was especially fuzzy. Personally, I care a lot more about the line between main/contrib and non-free. -- Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it. So why isn't he in prison yet?... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Free documents using non-free fonts - can they be in main?
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm just going to note one important point about this whole thing. This is a main/contrib issue, *not* a main/non-free issue. Everyone agrees that the documents which use the non-free fonts are themselves free. The question is whether they depend on the non-free fonts. Are you sure? Isn't it the same as a program that contains in its sources a binary blob that's copied as-is to the executable, and the binary blob is non-free? Just that here the binary blob, i.e. the embedded fonts, is not even in the sources? Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
Re: Free documents using non-free fonts - can they be in main?
(This is in reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED].Sorry about the thread-breakingthought I should reply to this quickly rather than waiting to get to a better computer.) Frank Kuester wrote: Are you sure? Isn't it the same as a program that contains in its sources a binary blob that's copied as-is to the executable, and the binary blob is non-free? Just that here the binary blob, i.e. the embedded fonts, is not even in the sources? You're right. I was wrong and confused. I somehow (I don't know how) misread your original message, and missed that you were discussing distributing the compiled document (with the fonts embedded) in the binary package. Yes, the generated .pdfs are definitely non-free, because they embed the non-free fonts. The source files are free. I think it's possible to generate .pdf files which do not embed the font (in at least some cases), right? That's what I was thinking of. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Free documents using non-free fonts - can they be in main?
Marco d'Itri wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can't see anything in the DFSG which would forbid it, so it looks free to me. With the note that the source files may need to be modified to allow being processed with the free fonts present in Debian, but this would not be a freeness issue. I think that the interpretation is that the DFSG applies to the fonts also. It applies to the font, but not to the rendered document. The characters in the document are not subject to copyright. Yes but the problem is that the source for the fonts are not available. So we do not have the complete source code of the document. The situation is somewhat similar of a public domain binary only software with source not available. Such softwares will not be regarded as free. Olive -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Free documents using non-free fonts - can they be in main?
By the way is it that difficult to the package maintener to regenerate the document using free fonts? (the script texi2dvi do that nearly magically without having worrying about LaTeX rerun, makeindex, etc...) For a texinfo file, it's of course easy. For many LaTeX package documentation files, often created from dtx files, it is *that* difficult, as I already explained in this thread. I do not know the package in question but I am however confused. texi2dvi is able to compile standard latex code which are not texinfo (it look at the extension to know if it is laTeX or texinfo); you can also use the -l LaTeX option. Could you tell what the document is so that other people on this list might try. Have you tried yourself? Have you be in touch with the author (explaining the problem)? Olive -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
