Re: tetex-doc-nonfree
On Mon, 03 Apr 2006, Frank Küster wrote:
> >> Here we have the additional problem that the PDF uses non-free fonts.
> >
> I've brought this up on -legal a couple of weeks ago (because of the
> fontinst documentation), and the bottom line is: If we have the fonts
> and they are free, we can distribute the document as-is. If we don't
> have them, it's just the same as if a program ships as C-source plus one
> precompiled binary blob (except that in this case we don't even have the
> isolated binary blob, just the resulting compiled "binary"). And such a
> program would for sure be non-free.
Umpf, this is strange. AND stupid. And the comparison with binary blob
is just plain wrong, because this binary blob is essential for the USE
of the program.
With different fonts you still have all the information, but maybe not
the completely same layout. So there is no usage restriction by it.
If Debian starts being that strange, I am getting a bit, well to be
nice, upset.
I don't see in any of the DFSG clauses that the distribution of a pdf
with commercial fonts embedded, so that it looks nice, cool, easily
readable, whatever, together with the full source of the file, but
without the commercial fonts, is not Debian Free. Ok there is a
borderline case, if one would use let's say a special font and write the
document in \char"14\char"a1... than the sole source would not help. But
if we have a normal TeX code with usepackage{mtpro} for example, then it
really is not understandable.
Furthermore, for me it contradicts the DFSG, because it doesnt serve the
users, in fact it hinders the users:
* with pdf/commercial fonts plus source a user can:
- recreate the document in a very similar way
- reuse all the document contents
- read the document in a nice way
* witout pdf/commercial fonts the user can
- recreate the document in a very similar way
- reuse all the document contents
So in fact we TAKE a way the freedom of a user to reuse the document.
Is this the decision of -legal? Really? Can you send me a link? I want
to read there explanation, and if it is not really makes sense, I have
to rediscuss this there.
> What we can always do, of course, is recreate the document from the
> sources with an appropriate free font; but as long as it's distributable
> and we do have tetex/texlive-doc-nonfree, anyway, I'd just put it in
> there.
Of course, this is the easy way. But I still think that we should NOT
let the -legal guys become the last and ultimate decision makers and
knee in front of their decisions. Sick.
Best wishes
Norbert
(in a very good mood currently :-]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Norbert Preining <preining AT logic DOT at> Università di Siena
gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOLSOVER
One of those brown plastic trays with bumps on, placed upside down in
boxes of chocolates to make you think you're-getting two layers.
--- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff
Reply to: