Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
> Raul Miller <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 03:21:25PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > For a font, this is not quite true. Many fonts in Debian are the
> > > output of little languages or the equivalent. So we have no problem
> > > with the METAFONT-generated fonts. IIUC, there is similarly no
> > > problem with Truetype fonts.
> > P.S. in this case the source code for the program obviously includes the
> > source code to that little language, if we want the font to be 100% free.
> > If you have some other interpretation, please be more specific.
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 04:24:45PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Huh? The little language is a language, not a program. Do you mean
> the source code to the program? Or the source code to the language
> interpreter? Or both?
I mean both.
For a metafont generated font to be 100% free, both the compiler
(metafont) must be free, and the font itself must be free. The source
code for the font is written in the language compiled by the compiler.
> As I said, the METAFONT-generated fonts (if we have the METAFONT
> programs) are no problem. See how easy that was?
Ok, I missed the "no problem" part -- reading too fast -- sorry for
> > P.P.S. I find it extremely ironic that one of the more vocal supporters
> > for the "get rid of non-free" meme is now arguing [rather vehemently]
> > against a somewhat milder implementation of that meme than was originally
> > proposed.
> It's only ironic if you want to see everything on a political
That's not only false, it's confusing.
> I think that we should not distribute non-free on Debian;
> that is an entirely separate question from whether a particular thing
> is or is not free.
> Nor am I arguing for a milder implementation of anything. All I have
> said is that it is inappropriate to apply the GPL's definition of
> sourcecode unreflectively. That definition is not, and never has
> been, a part of the DFSG, and we should not make it so now.
Once again: it's meaningless to reject a definition if you're not
going to provide a better one in its place.