On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 12:15:38PM -0400, Stuart Ballard wrote:
> Speaking of DFSG-free fonts, I hear there is a set of GPL'd TrueType
> fonts in the OpenOffice distribution. (I also hear that their hinting
> has problems due to the particular software they were created with, but
> that's an aside
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 12:15:38PM -0400, Stuart Ballard wrote:
> Speaking of DFSG-free fonts, I hear there is a set of GPL'd TrueType
> fonts in the OpenOffice distribution. (I also hear that their hinting
> has problems due to the particular software they were created with, but
> that's an aside
Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> Underlying the DFSG is the notion that these are important values. Debian
> does not insist that everyone else in the world share them, or prioritize
> them as highly as we do. They are, however, very high priorities for our
> Project.
Speaking of DFSG-free fonts, I h
Hi.
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on Tue, 03 Apr 2001 21:29:34 +0200,
on Re: DFSG and fonts [was: Bug#91856: Hello],
Juliusz Chroboczek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> DS> what if X 5.0 only supports OpenType and BDF fonts, and Y&Y isn't
> DS> interested in converting them?
>
> I realise that's no
Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> Underlying the DFSG is the notion that these are important values. Debian
> does not insist that everyone else in the world share them, or prioritize
> them as highly as we do. They are, however, very high priorities for our
> Project.
Speaking of DFSG-free fonts, I
Hi.
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on Tue, 03 Apr 2001 21:29:34 +0200,
on Re: DFSG and fonts [was: Bug#91856: Hello],
Juliusz Chroboczek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> DS> what if X 5.0 only supports OpenType and BDF fonts, and Y&Y isn't
> DS> interested in converting them?
>
> I realise that's n
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > > What are they? They need serious bugs filed against them.
> > >
> > > e.g. doc-rfc ?
> >
> > The GNU General Public Licence itself may not be modified. I hope this
> > doesn't mean ...
>
> Copyright licenses as legal documents may not be modified ex
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 08:37:12AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> > > What are they? They need serious bugs filed against them.
> >
> > e.g. doc-rfc ?
>
> The GNU General Public Licence itself may not be modified. I hope this
> doesn't mean ...
Copyright licenses as legal documents may
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > > What are they? They need serious bugs filed against them.
> > >
> > > e.g. doc-rfc ?
> >
> > The GNU General Public Licence itself may not be modified. I hope this
> > doesn't mean ...
>
> Copyright licenses as legal documents may not be modified e
James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > While the issues on unmodifiable non-software stuff in Debian are
> > > not as clear-cut as Branden has made them out to be (I know of at
> > > least a half dozen packages in main that are unmodifiable, that were
> > > put there knowing that)
> >
> > What ar
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 08:37:12AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> > > What are they? They need serious bugs filed against them.
> >
> > e.g. doc-rfc ?
>
> The GNU General Public Licence itself may not be modified. I hope this
> doesn't mean ...
Copyright licenses as legal documents may
James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > While the issues on unmodifiable non-software stuff in Debian are
> > > not as clear-cut as Branden has made them out to be (I know of at
> > > least a half dozen packages in main that are unmodifiable, that were
> > > put there knowing that)
> >
> > What a
12 matches
Mail list logo
