Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 03:21:25PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > For a font, this is not quite true. Many fonts in Debian are the > > output of little languages or the equivalent. So we have no problem > > with the METAFONT-generated fonts. IIUC, there is similarly no > > problem with Truetype fonts. > > P.S. in this case the source code for the program obviously includes the > source code to that little language, if we want the font to be 100% free. > If you have some other interpretation, please be more specific.
Huh? The little language is a language, not a program. Do you mean the source code to the program? Or the source code to the language interpreter? Or both? As I said, the METAFONT-generated fonts (if we have the METAFONT programs) are no problem. See how easy that was? > P.P.S. I find it extremely ironic that one of the more vocal supporters > for the "get rid of non-free" meme is now arguing [rather vehemently] > against a somewhat milder implementation of that meme than was originally > proposed. It's only ironic if you want to see everything on a political spectrum. I think that we should not distribute non-free on Debian; that is an entirely separate question from whether a particular thing is or is not free. Nor am I arguing for a milder implementation of anything. All I have said is that it is inappropriate to apply the GPL's definition of sourcecode unreflectively. That definition is not, and never has been, a part of the DFSG, and we should not make it so now. Thomas
