Re: Problem with font licenses (a2ps bug caused by xfonts-scalable change)
On Sun, Apr 01, 2001 at 11:45:29AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
Content-Description: message body text
>
> Gentlemen,
>
> I received a bug report (#91856) on a2ps for its contributed ogonkify program
> which likes to uses Courier font. However, we no longer have those due to a
> narrower interpretation if the license.
>
> Ogonkify's author asks if we could consider a more liberal definition for
> *fonts* and other artwork (as opposed to source code, say). I feel this has
> merit. Comments?
IIRC I asked a similar question about peripheral device firmware a few
months ago (though on -devel) and never really heard much discussion. On
the other hand, my question was more toward the conceptual differences
between firmware and GP executable code, and not so much toward actually
modifying the DFSG/Social Contract.
So I'm more interested in learning what differences between
human-executable content (fonts, sounds, images) and machine-executable
code you feel warrant any changes in the allowable licensing.
> Please CC me on replies as I'm not debian-legal regular, and maybe even CC
> the bug file #91856.
[snipped forwarded message]
-- Ferret
Reply to: