On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 09:04:32PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote: > 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. Erm, when asking the question of whether or not they are right, their own statement that they are right is not useful. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature