[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge

> Raul Miller <moth@debian.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
the aside.

> > 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
> spectrum.

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.


Reply to: