Re: what is allowed with TeX and CM fonts (was Re: User's thoughts about LPPL)
Henning Makholm writes:
> Scripsit Frank Mittelbach <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > probably none (definitely not for the 72 individual font names. Nevertheless
> > Debian wouldn't get a good press if it would generate modified versions of
> > such programs and fonts and distributed them under the original names.
> Please avoid the fallacy of assuming that every right required by the
> DFSG is something that some in the Debian project itself intends to
> actually do. The requirements are there much more to make sure our
> users have them than to make sure *we* have them.
I wasn't intending to imply that. but i was implying that (at least by moral
rights) you don't have them in this particular case, or in other words that
you are faced with a similar situation compared to LPPL and that is not
As it was pointed out several times, we think it is pointless for us to
continue any discussion if at some point in the future TeX and CM fonts are
moved to non-free. Then we would like to see LaTeX there as well.
So it is important that Debian comes internally to a conclusion what their
position to DEK's licenses or interpretation of his licenses is.
> [This being said without implying anything about the freedom or lack
> thereof of the Computer Modern fonts].
i was looking for the reference exactly because i would like to see that being
settled as well, as i think it is to some extend a prerequisite --- after all
LPPL was modeled after (in our opinion successful model of the TeX license or,
say, DEK's idea on a license).
ps answers to your other posts coming up in a different window, stay tuned
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org