Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
Jim Gettys wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-04-26 at 17:22, Humberto Massa wrote:
<snip>
>> I will quote (misquote?) what I have seen here about this: the words
>> "preferred form for modification" are imported from the GNU GPL, and
>> used in debian-legal at least, traditionally, to define source code.
Because we can't come up with a better definition. :-)
> The other aspect of "preferred form for modification", is 'modification
> by whom'?
Yes; there's no real consensus on this. But we try to be reasonable about
that; if there's a form that someone would prefer to modify, that's at
least a good start!
> So, for example, for most free software people, TrueType is the
> preferred format for modifying most fonts, and most people building
> screen fonts will be using either proprietary or open source tools
> to do so directly (e.g. pfaedit).
Yeah, that seems fine.
> For a font foundry, (e.g. Bitstream, in the Vera case), which uses
> its own proprietary tools to generate multiple formats (e.g. Postscript,
> TrueType, and proprietary formats), the answer may be different. Having
> the bits in that form would *not* be useful to anyone else intent
> on modifying those fonts.
That seems fine too, but would be 'contrib'.
> I think a bit of sanity and common sense is lacking in this discussion,
> myself.
You've noticed that too?
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Reply to: