Re: Preparation of Debian GNU/Linux 3.0r2 (II)
GOTO Masanori <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> At Fri, 21 Nov 2003 08:35:10 +0000,
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
>> [1 <text/plain; us-ascii (quoted-printable)>]
>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 09:52:01AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
>> > At Thu, 20 Nov 2003 22:36:40 +0100,
>> > Osamu Aoki wrote:
>> > > > > One of "More-clearly-free alternative scalable Japanese fonts" is
>> > > > > kochi-mincho/kochi-gothic in sid/sarge. Many Japanese use this
>> > > > > font rather than Watanabe font.
>> > > >
>> > > > If this alternative contains the necessary glyphs, then I do not see
>> > > > that much of a problem with removing the Hitachi fonts.
>> > >
>> > > Exactly. We just has to make sure HITACHI's claim was not the primary
>> > > reason to do so. HITACHI is just a noise.
>> > So you just ignore original font author's claim. Is it good attitude?
>> If their claim was bogus? Yup, it is. Paying attention to bogus claims
>> isn't just silly, it sets a very bad precendent.
> Yeah, if we recognize it's just bogus, then we don't discuss seriously
> and don't consume our precious time.
> Original author (Hitachi, who were infringed), and kochi upstream
> author (who infringed without knowing) already discussed and their
> conclusion was that it was not just bogus. Kochi upstream author,
> Yasuyuki Furukawa, wrote details  at his web site (in Japanese).
>  http://www.on.cs.keio.ac.jp/~yasu/jp_fonts.html
I'm confused -- and don't read Japanese. But let me get one thing
straight: what Hitachi distributed were strictly bitmap fonts, right?
No metafont, truetype, or postscript font outlines, just bitmaps?
Alternately, let me ask three simple questions:
1. Were the hitachi fonts bitmaps?
2. Were the kochi fonts bitmaps?
3. Are the watanabe fonts bitmaps?
If the answer to any one of those three questions is yes, Debian's fine