Norbert Preining <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Argg, yes, here we are again. What matters to me is that a user can use > the INFORMATION in the document, i.e. the actual source and use it in > case he makes a derived work. > > And it matters to me that people can get optimal typographic quality. > > So either we have to distribute crippled versions of many documents, > crippled only in the sense that yes, all the information/text is there, > but the layout and design is crippled. Or we do not distribute them at > all. > > That is a very bad option, sorry. > > Maybe it is that I am one of the few who CARE for design and typographic > quality. > > Do the DFSG apply to design???
I'm personally going to bow out here, since I think this is now a discussion about what rules we should have rather than how to apply them, and I try not to have this discussion. I don't disagree with you, but am not sure that I agree with you either. I think the tradeoffs are very hard. But we had a GR a while back which, at least in my opinion, is fairly unambiguous in its results (particularly after the subsequent GRs), so policy-wise that was the decision of the project. I would certainly carefully consider a new GR to see if I thought it was an improvement, but short of that, this discussion tends to be very frustrating for all involved. I hate the way fonts are licensed and how few of them are under free software licenses. I think it's one of the biggest flaws and shortcomings of free software right now. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
