* Nathanael Nerode:
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.
In an abstract sense, maybe. But the concrete representation of that
document which embeds proprietary fonts is non-free. It's
* Frank Küster:
I'm wondering whether a document that's licensed under a DFSG-free
license, with TeX/sgml/whatever sources available and all, may use
non-free fonts. For example, the LaTeX source would contain
\usepackage{lucidabr}
and you'd be able to create the document from that source
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 05 Mar 2006 12:03:00 +0100 Claus Färber wrote:
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote:
The reason for this is that building (La)TeX documentation
* depends on the right number and order of commands to be
executed,
which one
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 05 Mar 2006 12:03:00 +0100 Claus Färber wrote:
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote:
The reason for this is that building (La)TeX documentation
* depends on the right number and order of
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote:
The reason for this is that building (La)TeX documentation
* depends on the right number and order of commands to be executed,
which one has to find by trial and error (it's very rare that
authors upload Makefiles, since usually they
On 05 Mar 2006 12:03:00 +0100 Claus Färber wrote:
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote:
The reason for this is that building (La)TeX documentation
* depends on the right number and order of commands to be
executed,
which one has to find by trial and error (it's very
olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
(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
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
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
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Even though _you_ may not want to take the time to fix errors, it is
essential for freedom that _the user_ has the tools he needs to fix
errors if he so desires.
He has. Just comment out the \usepackage line that changes the font,
and do the
It seems the only good way to handle this is to get upsteam to change fonts
or convince the font author to make the font availale under a free licence.
Considering the particluar fonts used, that is quite unlikely.
Font copyrights are a royal pain. :(
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
[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
On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 11:31:31 +0100 Frank Küster wrote:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Even though _you_ may not want to take the time to fix errors, it
is essential for freedom that _the user_ has the tools he needs
to fix errors if he so desires.
He has. Just comment
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED]
How do you fix errors in the document?
By waiting for upstream to release a new version.
Even though _you_ may not want to take the time to fix errors, it is
essential for freedom that _the user_ has the
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Frank K=FCster asked:
Does debian-legal think that a
document with a DFSG-free license and with sources available except for
the embedded fonts is DFSG-free or not?
I don't think a binary file follows the DFSG as a whole if it
contains fonts which do not
Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, everything in orig.tar.gz must be DFSG free.
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Frank Küster wrote:
Err, of course. That's why I ask. Does debian-legal think that a
document with a DFSG-free license and with sources
Frank K=3DFCster asked:
Sorry not to give the answer you wanted.
Err, excuse me? [...]
I missed the word sooner from the end of that and it seems to
have totally changed the meaning. I didn't mean to suggest that
you wanted a particular answer, just an answer.
Sorry for being unclear,
--
Marco d'Itri wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Err, of course. That's why I ask. Does debian-legal think that a
document with a DFSG-free license and with sources available except for
the embedded fonts is DFSG-free or not?
I can't see anything in the DFSG which would forbid it, so it looks
olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that the interpretation is that the DFSG applies to the fonts
also. Indeed in this case, you cannot regenerate the same pdf file
with tools from main. Quite often I agree with you that the DFSG are
interpreted too strictly and does not refer the original
On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 10:25:24 +0100 Frank Küster wrote:
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED]
How do you fix errors in the document?
By waiting for upstream to release a new version.
Even though _you_ may not want to take the time to fix
Hi,
I'm wondering whether a document that's licensed under a DFSG-free
license, with TeX/sgml/whatever sources available and all, may use
non-free fonts. For example, the LaTeX source would contain
\usepackage{lucidabr}
and you'd be able to create the document from that source only if you
have
Hi Frank!
You wrote:
I'm wondering whether a document that's licensed under a DFSG-free
license, with TeX/sgml/whatever sources available and all, may use
non-free fonts. For example, the LaTeX source would contain
\usepackage{lucidabr}
and you'd be able to create the document from that
Bas Zoetekouw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Frank!
You wrote:
I'm wondering whether a document that's licensed under a DFSG-free
license, with TeX/sgml/whatever sources available and all, may use
non-free fonts. For example, the LaTeX source would contain
\usepackage{lucidabr}
and you'd
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- There's no automated way to reproduce the documentation exactly as the
author wants it, and once we would establish one, there would be no
way to detect whether a new upstream version changed that.
The reason for this is that building (La)TeX
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a consequence, you can't be sure to get the same document by simply
running pdflatex over the source file.
This is an excellent reason for why the documentation *should* be
rebuilt. How do you know that you can make a reasonable document
unless
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, everything in orig.tar.gz must be DFSG free.
Err, of course. That's why I ask. Does debian-legal think that a
document with a DFSG-free license and with sources available except for
the embedded fonts is DFSG-free or not?
I don't want to hear
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I forgot to answer one question - please follow up to devel if you want
to discuss this, since it isn't a legal issue.
If the usual dtx mantra:
pdflatex package.dtx
makeindex -s gind.ist
makeindex -s gglo.ist -o package.gls package.glo
pdflatex
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Err, of course. That's why I ask. Does debian-legal think that a
document with a DFSG-free license and with sources available except for
the embedded fonts is DFSG-free or not?
I can't see anything in the DFSG which would forbid it, so it looks
free to me. With the note
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think not. AFAIK, the binaries in main must be built from the sources
in main, which wouldn't be possible in the case you're describing.
This is not true and has never been true.
The requirement is that it must be *possible* to build our packages only
using packages in
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, everything in orig.tar.gz must be DFSG free.
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Frank Küster wrote:
Err, of course. That's why I ask. Does debian-legal think that a
document with a DFSG-free license and with sources available except for
the embedded fonts is
Scripsit Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm wondering whether a document that's licensed under a DFSG-free
license, with TeX/sgml/whatever sources available and all, may use
non-free fonts.
I think the source itself can be free (and, hence, can be in a source
package in main), but I don't
Scripsit Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED]
How do you fix errors in the document?
By waiting for upstream to release a new version.
Even though _you_ may not want to take the time to fix errors, it is
essential for freedom that _the user_ has the tools he needs to fix
errors if he so desires.
I
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 19:54:24 +0100 Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
Assuming that the original author has the right to distribute and
let re-distribute PDF files using that font without limits, would it
be okay for main to distribute the compiled
Frank K=FCster asked:
Does debian-legal think that a
document with a DFSG-free license and with sources available except for
the embedded fonts is DFSG-free or not?
I don't think a binary file follows the DFSG as a whole if it
contains fonts which do not follow DFSG 2 (Source Code).
Sorry not
41 matches
Mail list logo
