On Sun, 2006-04-16 at 19:24 +0300, Daniel Stone wrote: > On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 07:17:40PM +0300, Daniel Stone wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 02:24:21AM +1000, Drew Parsons wrote: > > > Painfully, we may have to proceed without freetype support in Xprint > > > after all. > > > > AIUI, the non-freeness issue I raised on xorg-modular, would certainly > > violate the DFSG?
I missed your message at xorg-modular, when did you make it? > For reference, the upstream copyright file: > http://webcvs.freedesktop.org/xorg/xc/extras/ttf2pt1/COPYRIGHT?view=markup > > I misremembered (confusing it with the stupid libXaw copyright issue): > it's not actually DFSG-non-free, but just GPL-incompatible IIRC -- > advertising clause. Yes, that's right, just the advertising clause. My guess is they generically grabbed the BSD licence at the time. A nice solution would be if ttf2pt1 changed their licence to modern BSD. I might ask them. > Though the Type1 assembler is one of those > 'licences are easy, I'll just write one myself' types. :\ > Cool! Thanks for volunteering to do it ;) > > This will all clear up much more easily once Debian has upgraded to > > X11R7.1. > > Right. Given they're modules, an upload of just the newer versions of > x11proto-fixes and libxfont could be done? This is, after all, the > Grand Unified New Modular Reality. :) It'd be nice if that's true, and it would make sense. Older xserver code simply wouldn't use the two new xfixes functions. However someone at #xorg said he wasn't sure it was that simple, and that it might destabilise the system. I can't judge whether he is being overly pessimistic or not. I'm all for uploading the newer Fixes and Font if it's safe to do so. Drew -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
