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

Re: User's thoughts about LPPL

> Additionally, there is the question
> of defining "non-functional" data; some kinds of data, such as fonts,
> have functional impact

for a system like latex the fonts (or at least their metrics) have as
much impact as the rest of the system. Modifying the font metrics is
even more likely to change the final document layout than changing the
latex macros (most of which are not used in any given document run).

>  if the time comes to act, CM fonts can be moved to non-free then.

In that case probably it's best if we just all come back then.
It will be a lot of work finalising the details of a rewrite of LPPL
and if the only benefit of that is that you declare LaTeX suitable for
the free part of Debian, that effort will be completely wasted if TeX
and the fonts are not in the free part.

I'd like to see LaTeX classed as Free by Debian (because it is Free)
but distributing LaTeX separately from TeX would be non sensical
and lead to massive user confusion. So if TeX and the CM fonts were in
non-free I'd suggest you distribute latex from there as well, even if
latex had a licence that you would be happy to classify as free.

So I don't think we can do anything about the latex licence until 
then. (This is a personal response to your comments, Frank may have
different ideas, especially as he's spent a lot of time redrafting
LPPL this last month and is (I thought) almost there as regards
addressing any concerns raised by Debian with the old version.)


This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet
delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further
information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call
Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: