Re: User's thoughts about LPPL
On Wed, 2002-07-17 at 05:29, David Carlisle wrote:
> Those conditions [on cm fonts] _are_ at the level of individual file
> names.
As a data point, there is some disagreement within Debian as to whether
non-functional components, such as documentation, should be held to the
same standard as functional ones. Additionally, there is the question
of defining "non-functional" data; some kinds of data, such as fonts,
have functional impact, and it's not clear where to draw the line (if
indeed there is a line to be drawn).
I would encourage the curious to look in the debian-legal archives
(http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/) for more information. In
particular, there are some good references in:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200204/msg00028.html
So as not to delve into that argument again, it might be more productive
to shelve the question of the CM fonts and pay closer attention to files
(like tex.web) that are more clearly functional. It's my understanding
that we have yet to take action against any packages currently in Debian
main pending a more clear resolution; if the time comes to act, the CM
fonts can be moved to non-free then.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: