On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 13:30:26 +0100 Frank Küster wrote:
> Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it> wrote:
>
> > 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,
>
> Honestly, I think this question is irrelevant. The binary version of
> the document is non-free, therefore I'll put it into
> tetex-docnon-free, and if we do have the sources, I'm going to put
> them in the same source package, even if the sources could go to
> contrib.
When I read your "this is not a freedom issue" claim, I got the
impression you were thinking the binary version of the document could be
considered DFSG-free and go in main, even if the used fonts were
non-free. That's why I followed up with my counterclaim that it was
indeed a freedom issue.
If you were already convinced that such a document (compiled from
DFSG-free source, but with non-free fonts) does not belong in main, then
I must have misunderstood: I apologize.
So, to summarize my opinion:
A) the document can go in main, *if* it is adapted and rebuilt with
DFSG-free fonts
B) the document as is (i.e.: with non-free fonts), should *not* be
distributed in main, but in non-free instead
I would of course prefer option A, but you already stated that it's a
pain, so, if you are not willing to do it, we are left with option B...
--
:-( 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:
pgpv32zLusSJM.pgp
Description: PGP signature