On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 11:31:31 +0100 Frank Küster wrote:
> Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it> 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 correction. This is really not a freedom issue.
> >
> > If it's just so easy to make the document rebuildable with free
> > fonts, why don't you do that once and for all?
>
> <mode=repeat>
> because we would have to check the new line, paragraph and page
> breaking still makes sense, especially in the two cases that are a PDF
> presentation.
> </mode>
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 goto 2.
Your claim that this is *not* a freedom issue, looks like saying that a
statically-linked binary executable program is DFSG-free just because
the program source is free, even if the used library is non-free:
a user who wants to rebuild the binary using only things in main, can
always choose a DFSG-free library that provides similar functionalities
and adapt the program source to the new library (which, say, is
API-incompatible with the non-free one).
I'm not convinced by such an argument.
I think that this *is* a freedom issue.
--
:-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-)
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpQWXo_NnWST.pgp
Description: PGP signature