On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 08:47:31AM -0400, Eric Sharkey wrote: > There used to be more information about Microsoft's interprettation of > their own EULA on the font web page. Since that page is gone, it's no > longer there, but the gist of it was that they were taking a very very > strict view of "a true and complete copy", to the extent that changing > the packaging of the fonts in any way (even just changing the filename > without changing the file contents) would make it no longer a true and > complete copy. They were pretty clear on this point. > > In other words, no tarballs allowed. Distribution has to be in the form > of a collection of separate Windows 95 self-installing executables.
Then there should still be nothing wrong with packing all of those .exe's in a tar file, for transport. The package would then be based on the current installer package. -- Bart.
