On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:29:39AM +0200, Niklas Vainio wrote:
> I've put up a web page listing possible replacements for packages currently in
> non-free. There are still lot of blanks - please give suggestions. Perhaps
> this
> page can help in the discussion about removing non-free.
>
> Also i
Le sam 24/01/2004 à 00:12, Anthony Fok a écrit :
> I just did some experiments, and it seems that the "prettier" version
> (http://descent.netsplit.com/~scott/fonts-upstream.png) was rendered with
> FreeType's "autohinting" on.
Yes, enabling the autohinter disables the bytecode interpreter as the
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:29:39AM +0200, Niklas Vainio wrote:
> I've put up a web page listing possible replacements for packages currently in
> non-free. There are still lot of blanks - please give suggestions. Perhaps
> this
> page can help in the discussion about removing non-free.
>
> Also i
I've put up a web page listing possible replacements for packages currently in
non-free. There are still lot of blanks - please give suggestions. Perhaps this
page can help in the discussion about removing non-free.
Also included is explanation why the package is in non-free. This is based
on the
On Fri, 2004-01-23 at 23:12, Anthony Fok wrote:
> I just did some experiments, and it seems that the "prettier" version
> (http://descent.netsplit.com/~scott/fonts-upstream.png) was rendered with
> FreeType's "autohinting" on. In that case, I suggest modifying
> /etc/fonts/local.conf and uncommen
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 08:08:03AM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> > patch (030-bytecode-interpreter.diff), I suspect this patch still remains
> > from
> > the 1.0 freetype series, when this and other patches were used to supply an
> > unpatented bytecode interpreter. According to the freetype si
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 07:43:44PM +0100, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
> He includes adns (GPL) in the source tarball; so, that's that.
>
> This means that they themselves are not allowed to distribute the program
> too, correct? Since they are violating the terms of adns's copyright?
If it's a comb
"Wesley W. Terpstra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have a package which has in the COPYING file this text:
>
> Cheops is distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License.
> In addition, Adtran's name MAY NOT be removed from the product (or any
> derivative work) and must be prominan
Scripsit "Wesley W. Terpstra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 11:27:20AM -0500, Joe Moore wrote:
> > If the package contains GPL'd code that is written by someone
> > other than the main copyright holder (Adtran), then the package
> > is undistributable.
> He includes adns (GPL) in
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
> He includes adns (GPL) in the source tarball; so, that's that.
>
> This means that they themselves are not allowed to distribute the program
> too, correct? Since they are violating the terms of adns's copyright?
Yes, that's correct. Presumably the
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 11:27:20AM -0500, Joe Moore wrote:
> Wesley W. Terpstra said:
> > So, what does that mean for a package where the copyright holder
> > distributes the package with an extra clause and GPL? Can I
> > redistribute it at all?
> >
> > PS. Please CC me on replies as I am not subs
Wesley W. Terpstra said:
> So, what does that mean for a package where the copyright holder
> distributes the package with an extra clause and GPL? Can I
> redistribute it at all?
>
> PS. Please CC me on replies as I am not subscribed.
IANAL, IANADD, IJRD-L.
The last time this conversation came u
I have a package which has in the COPYING file this text:
Cheops is distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License.
In addition, Adtran's name MAY NOT be removed from the product (or any
derivative work) and must be prominantly displayed in any "About" box,
documentation, product li
On Fri, 2004-01-23 at 20:41, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> "Brian M. Carlson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If Apple decides to actively enforce its patent, you should upgrade
> > the severity to serious if the license available for general use is
> > not compatible with the Debian Free Software Guideli
"Brian M. Carlson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Debian is not patent-free, and will not be patent-free. CAST5 and
> CAST6 are patented but are available for use royalty free. DSA is
> patented by, IIRC, David Kravitz of the NSA. Putting a cursor on the
> screen using XOR is patented.
The XOR cur
On Jan 22, 2004, at 13:59, Jakob Bohm wrote:
TINLA, IANAL
Nor am I.
How does this relate to (override, narrow, whatever) the
precedent set by Lotus vs. Borland (the famous case about
Quattro Pro reproducing the "Look and Feel" of Lotus-1-2-3,
partially because it was also the Lotus-1-2-3 ma
On Jan 21, 2004, at 21:27, Henning Makholm wrote:
http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~dkarjala/cyberlaw/
PosSoftwareVNewCentury(DBstructures)(NDTex2003).htm
It is not clear to me that this text talks about APIs at all.
It seems to be about the *internal* structure of a database, which -
in my opinio
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 09:20:58PM +0100, Alex de Landgraaf wrote:
> Hey debian-legal,
>
> Interested in improving font-AAing in Debian, I've taken a look at some of the
> patches in Debian for the freetype package. Now patents have hinderd true AA
> using freetype in Debian in the past (> 2 years
18 matches
Mail list logo
