Bug#345604: tetex-doc-nonfree
Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at> wrote:
> 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.
An author who has deliberately chosen this font because he thinks it
makes the document more readable, has manually optimized the line
breaking etc. might have a differing opinion.
And if you've got a free piece of software, you can always reuse parts
of it, even in binary form (like extracting particular symbols from an
object file), which you aren't allowed to do if the software is a
Postscript or PDF document that includes non-free fonts.
> If Debian starts being that strange, I am getting a bit, well to be
> nice, upset.
I am all but happy with the current situation, especially the differing
views of Debian and the FSF on documentation freeness. But I think
there's one good thing about it: You can't say that it's a shame to
find one's document in non-free, since you've got prominent company
there.
> 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.
The text of the document itself is free, and we can always generate a
PDF file from it which uses free fonts and ship that one. But we can't
ship the "binary form", the original PDF with non-free fonts included.
> 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.
No, we only take away the possibility to read the document in a nice
way, as you pointed out yourself. And we clearly document that a forth
thing is missing, namely the usual
- the user can extract arbitrary parts of the compiled document
and reuse them
> 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.
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.devel.legal/25166
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)
Reply to: