I've been asked for advice regarding copyleft (GPL-like) font
licensing.
Without special exceptions, the GPL is not a suitable license for
fonts because it is common practice to embed fonts (or subsets of
fonts) into PDF documents (and other document formats). In this
scenario, the GPL would
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 11:20:06AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
I've been asked for advice regarding copyleft (GPL-like) font
licensing.
Without special exceptions, the GPL is not a suitable license for
fonts because it is common practice to embed fonts (or subsets of
fonts) into PDF
hoi :)
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 05:49:26PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
If the driver has to be able to open the file and read the blob so it
can send it to the device, there's a clear relationship and dependency
between the driver and the blob: if you don't have a copy of the blob,
the driver
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 11:20:06AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
Without special exceptions, the GPL is not a suitable license for
fonts because it is common practice to embed fonts (or subsets of
fonts) into PDF documents (and other document formats). In this
scenario, the GPL would
* Raul Miller:
Why would subsetting be a problem?
I don't see anything in the GPL which requires source for things
which have been left out of the program being required.
The subsetted font is not the preferred form of doing modifications to
the font.
Anyway, this isn't the case I'm really
Why would subsetting be a problem?
I don't see anything in the GPL which requires source for things
which have been left out of the program being required.
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 04:53:02PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
The subsetted font is not the preferred form of doing modifications
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 11:20:06AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
Maybe fonts could be licensed under the GPL plus the following
exception?
| As a special exception, if a document file embeds Type 1, TrueType,
| OpenType or bitmap fonts derived from this source code, these fonts
| do not by
In addition to the issues raised by others, I'd like to point out the
following:
Public/publicly: Not solely directed towards a
certain group of people who have a personal
connection to each other or are associated
through their affiliation with a legal person or
public organisation.
Eitan Gurari writes:
[...] In other word, does the DFSG allows such thing?
I think so in letter, especially given the LPPL's definitions, but it
feels bad to obstruct people wanting to adapt the software to their
needs. It would be good if Eitan could mark
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
No; the hardware is damaged. No driver can drive that. The driver
you have is a driver for Foomatic Quxer cards. You don't have a
Foomatix Quxer; you have a broken pile of junk.
So here you argue that because the firmware is gone the hardware is broken,
correct?
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 02:23:54PM +0100, Martin Waitz wrote:
I have a PCMCIA card that lost its flash memory.
So suddenly its driver became non-free?
Only if all such cards have lost their flash memory, which is improbable.
As long as some cards exist with a working flash, the driver is useful
Peter Van Eynde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
No; the hardware is damaged. No driver can drive that. The driver
you have is a driver for Foomatic Quxer cards. You don't have a
Foomatix Quxer; you have a broken pile of junk.
So here you argue that because the
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 09:20:14PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Peter Van Eynde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
No; the hardware is damaged. No driver can drive that. The driver
you have is a driver for Foomatic Quxer cards. You don't have a
Foomatix
[just some minor additions.]
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 09:20:14PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
No, I argue that because you've pried chips off the board, the
hardware is broken.
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 09:39:59PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Er, no. Flash can be overwritten with
14 matches
Mail list logo
