Raul Miller writes:
> > You've got something backwords. Microsoft is >>giving<< people permission
> > to include fonts in documents.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But not to distribute derivatives. You appeared to be claiming that a .deb
> that included the whole thing would be
Raul Miller writes:
> You've got something backwords. Microsoft is >>giving<< people permission
> to include fonts in documents.
But not to distribute derivatives. You appeared to be claiming that a .deb
that included the whole thing would be somehow a subset that the license
forbids distributio
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Therefor a set is a subset of itself [1]. Therefor the "font pack"
> cannot be distributed at all by anyone but Microsoft, since that would
> constitute distributing a subset.
You've got something backwords. Microsoft is >>giving<< people permission
Oliver Elphick wrote:
> How can _all_ be a subset?
Raul writes:
> One set is a subset of another if all the members of the first are
> members of the second.
Therefor a set is a subset of itself [1]. Therefor the "font pack" cannot
be distributed at all by anyone but Microsoft, since that would
Oliver Elphick wrote:
> How can _all_ be a subset?
One set is a subset of another if all the members of the first are
members of the second.
--
Raul
Raul Miller wrote:
>The thing is: including all the fonts by wrapping the whole thing up in
^^^
>a .deb is creating an improper subset of the fonts
^^
How can _all_ be a subset?
If you include the whole of something you get in a
On Sun, Dec 06, 1998 at 01:50:12PM -0500, Avery Pennarun wrote:
>
> The DFSG is not terribly relevant, since the best I'm hoping for is to get
> this into non-free.
Ok, sorry, I'm having some trouble remembering the original post. Went
back and looked and saw you stated 'non-free'. :)
--
-
>> Restrictions on Alteration. You may not rename, edit or create any
>> derivative works from the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, other than subsetting
>> when embedding them in documents.
>
>This automatically makes it not DFSG free since we cannot alter the
>original in any form, not
On Sun, Dec 06, 1998 at 01:30:04PM -0500, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Restrictions on Alteration. You may not rename, edit or create any
>> derivative works from the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, other than subsetting
>> when embedding them in documents.
>
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Restrictions on Alteration. You may not rename, edit or create any
>derivative works from the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, other than subsetting
>when embedding them in documents.
This automatically makes it not DFSG free since we cannot alte
On Sun, Dec 06, 1998 at 01:12:09PM -0500, Avery Pennarun wrote:
>
> I'd rather you quoted the actual license, rather than my interpretation
> (though I'm flattered :))
My apologies
> Limitations on Reverse Engineering, Decompilation, and Disassembly.
> You may not reverse engineer, de
On Sun, Dec 06, 1998 at 10:33:07AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > More generally, I think this falls in the category of "if the author
> > doesn't want us to distribute it, or if we don't feel it's right for us
> > to distribute it, we don't".
>
> From an outsiders point of view why not just
On Sat, Dec 05, 1998 at 10:57:42PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 05, 1998 at 08:14:36PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Ben Collins writes:
> > > Then we can't do it since they will be repackaged into a .deb. Even if
> > > the .deb contains the .exe/.zip it will still be distributed
*- Raul Miller wrote about "Re: Considering packaging: Microsoft Web Font pack"
> John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> When you download a .zip, it's not transferred unchanged. There are TCP/IP
>> headers added to each packet. The file transfer protocol
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That's different because it's on a different layer. There is no file
> > at that layer.
>
> We're adding another layer too.
That's above the level of the file, not below it.
--
Raul
On Sun, Dec 06, 1998 at 09:56:36AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> That's different because it's on a different layer. There is no file
> at that layer.
We're adding another layer too.
> More generally, I think this falls in the category of "if the author
> doesn't want us to distribute it, or if w
On Sun, Dec 06, 1998 at 08:45:11AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 06, 1998 at 09:36:31AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
>
> > What they download and what they install are two different things. He said
> > "distributed in the original archive format" which was a .zip/.exe. If
> > they download
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When you download a .zip, it's not transferred unchanged. There are TCP/IP
> headers added to each packet. The file transfer protocol (FTP, HTTP, etc)
> adds stuff to it. .deb simply adds stuff as well. How's that different?
That's different because it
On Sun, Dec 06, 1998 at 09:36:31AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> What they download and what they install are two different things. He said
> "distributed in the original archive format" which was a .zip/.exe. If
> they download a .deb, it isn't the original archive is it?
When you download a .zip,
On Sat, Dec 05, 1998 at 10:28:58PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Ben Collins writes:
> > Putting it into a .deb isn't the original archive nor is it the original
> > format (of the archive). Although the original format is contained, the
> > actual downloadable/distributed archive wont be.
>
>
Ben Collins writes:
> Putting it into a .deb isn't the original archive nor is it the original
> format (of the archive). Although the original format is contained, the
> actual downloadable/distributed archive wont be.
I don't follow you. Take what ever it is that you get when you download
this
On Sat, Dec 05, 1998 at 08:14:36PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Ben Collins writes:
> > Then we can't do it since they will be repackaged into a .deb. Even if
> > the .deb contains the .exe/.zip it will still be distributed in a deb
> > package.
>
> So what? Sticking the whole thing inside a
Ben Collins writes:
> Then we can't do it since they will be repackaged into a .deb. Even if
> the .deb contains the .exe/.zip it will still be distributed in a deb
> package.
So what? Sticking the whole thing inside a .deb isn't modifying it.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Danci
Avery Pennarun writes:
> I'm including the license agreement (readme.txt) below.
Looks ok for non-free to me.
--
John HaslerThis posting is in the public domain.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Do with it what you will.
Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can;
24 matches
Mail list logo
