Re: Binaries under GPL(2)
- To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Binaries under GPL(2)
- From: Alexander Cherepanov <cherepan@mccme.ru>
- Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 07:10:47 +0300 (MSK)
- Message-id: <[🔎] 2.07b5.TGAF.HPVA9Z@cherepan.mccme.ru.msgid>
- In-reply-to: <20031126015959.GB13199@donarmstrong.com>
- References: <20031126015959.GB13199@donarmstrong.com> <20031119180445.GA6761@bogon.ms20.nix> <20031119184329.GR21640@nimrod> <20031119190632.GI805@bogon.ms20.nix> <20031119190140.GT21640@nimrod> <20031119192655.GK805@bogon.ms20.nix> <20031119193630.GU21640@nimrod> <87vfpg2knj.fsf@kreon.lan.henning.makholm.net> <20031119195907.GW21640@nimrod> <2.07b5.1DQKX.HOVJTY@cherepan.mccme.ru.msgid> <2.07b5.1HO1.HOXONC@cherepan.mccme.ru.msgid>
25-Nov-03 17:59 Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Alexander Cherepanov wrote:
>> Sure source is a big plus:-) But there are many "binaries" where the
>> lack of source is not that fatal -- bitmap pictures generated from
>> layered source, PostScript/PDF generated from TeX, info generated
>> from texinfo, etc.
> In all of these cases, we should be seeing the original source, rather
> than the resultant binary if the work is released under the GPL. In
> cases where it isn't, the resultant work has either been removed, or
> the source has been provided. [If you are aware of additional cases,
> please file bugs and/or refer the parties to debian-legal.]
Let's consider an example--gsfonts. That's Type1 fonts contributed by
URW (http://www.urwpp.de/). They are in main and they are under the
GPL. Do you think that .pfb files are really the source? I surmise
that the real source is in the internal format of IKARUS, their own
font editor. Is that fatal?
The same probably applies to any fonts contributed by big
typefoundries.
Sasha
Reply to: