Re: DFSG and fonts [was: Bug#91856: Hello]

2001-04-04 Thread Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS
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

Re: DFSG and fonts [was: Bug#91856: Hello]

2001-04-04 Thread Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS
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

Re: DFSG and fonts [was: Bug#91856: Hello]

2001-04-04 Thread Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS
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

Re: DFSG and fonts [was: Bug#91856: Hello]

2001-04-04 Thread Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS
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