27 Aug
2005
27 Aug
'05
13:25
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 JBScout [Thomas Lodewick] wrote: > houghi schrieb: ... >>> ( hmm, I don't know if that term matches here, because "open source" for >>> fonts .... I don't know. but they are free of charge as they are at the >>> MS-site). >> There is a difference betwee open source and free software. We are talking >> free as in speech, not free as in beer. > I know that that are two views of two different things. but as I wrote it, > I was thing of the source of a font - has it a source ? I don't know, so I > asked for the "open source" for fonts myself. Fonts have sources, indeed. Example: http://dejavu.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Main_Page You can also download the "sources" in form of FontForge SFD files. But there are other tools to directly edit .ttf files as well. > the source for the "core MS fonts" is open source - you can get it at > source forge. the question is if the fonts that are included into it are > open source - and because I don't know how the truetype-fonts will > be made I can't say if there is a source at least. Thomas, please don't mess up terms like "open source", "free" (libre) or "freely available". MS core fonts are definately *not* open source. You have to accept a license agreement from Microsoft whereas the files are freely distributable in an unaltered form: http://web.archive.org/web/20020227054122/www.microsoft.com/typography/fontpack/eula.htm Read part 1 and 2.. is that open source ? (hint: "unaltered form") ;) Now don't ask me why their SF project page states "GPL" as the license. That's definately wrong. >>>> If there would be a closed source to be installed, so be it. (as long as >>>> it is legal). Depends. It really depends on what it is. Using/shipping/including closed source software gives a very long trail of issues, e.g.: - - don't use closed source key components (e.g. libraries) others depend on - - different limitations apply to their redistribution, as well for Novell/SUSE as for individuals (e.g. putting ISOs on the web, P2P, ...) - - non-OpenSource licenses (like GPL, LGPL, BSD, ASL, MPL, EPL, MIT-X, etc...) must be handled with great care, because they always have their own text and must be read thouroughly to make sure you're not breaking its rules Don't underestimate the implications the use and inclusion of closed source software has. Now, that being said, I'm not a GPL zealot either and in certain cases, closed source software might be ok. If that's the only option for having an easy to install&use, fully working DVD player on Linux, then be it. >>> ok - that deepends on the look of view of every user himself. there are out >>> a lot of people who *never* would mix a OSS-system with closed software, >>> and some say "uh - why not". how mutch software has to be OSS, and how >>> mutch software could be closed software, so the hole system is still OSS ? >>> I don't know. >> That is their good right. You will never be forced to install the >> software. > if you like to hear MP3 and watch DVD+CSS and you want to be > on the legal side of life - you have to install it. Again, don't confuse MP3 and DVD/CSS. MP3 can be redistributed as long as it's redistributed freely (there was a prior post about that in this thread). - -- -o) Pascal Bleser http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/ /\\_\_v The more things change, the more they stay insane. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDEGnSr3NMWliFcXcRAi8zAJ9qUlFnLzDIa1DXv14IdnH+O9nBBQCgnQaA CSj8fSy4KJ+I9E2AstqfUOg= =PRij -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----