Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> ____/ Mark Kent on Monday 16 July 2007 12:05 : \____
>
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>> ____/ Mark Kent on Monday 16 July 2007 09:37 : \____
>>>
>>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>>> ____/ [H]omer on Sunday 15 July 2007 00:17 : \____
>>>>>
<snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This isn't Ubuntu, it's Gobuntu - with the specific goal of being an
>>>>>> untainted version of Ubuntu. Presumably there *are* some people who
>>>>>> wanted this, otherwise they wouldn't have created this fork in the first
>>>>>> place.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think they just don't have enough manpower to go after and eliminate the
>>>>> unwanted bits. gNewSense was the work of only a couple of people. Mark
>>>>> invited more people to discuss and develop it. that was last week.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't really understand why they're doing this, though - Debian does
>>>> exactly this already, and covers a wider range of platforms, too.
>>>> Surely it would be better to contribute into the Debian project?
>>>
>>> I am pretty certain some Debian delivers quite a few binary (or not truly
>>> Free) components. I recently read something from a Freetype developer who
>>> sort of confirmed this. If Debian was as Free as gNewSense, it would not
>>> have worked on many standard PCs.
>>>
>>
>> I don't think Debian does any binary components, and I'm pretty certain
>> that anything which doesn't meet the DFSGs is either not included at
>> all, or included in the non-free section, depending on what the issues
>> are.
>>
>> It could be things have changed, of course.
>
> I've checked this again, but you might be right. I confused "binary"
> with "patent-encumbered" (regardless of the invalidity of patenting graphics
> where it's all just matrix maths).
>
> This is one thing I had in mind:
>
> Interview with David Turner of Freetype
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| If the patent owner of hinting gives the Freetype project a free license,
>| would you accept it?
>|
>| David Turner: It really depends on the terms of this "free license".
>| Basically if it means the patent can not be freely re-licensed to other
>| people, I really don't see why I would find that useful. If you
>| absolutely need the bytecode interpreter, you can be patient and wait
>| for October 9, 2009, when the patents expire.
>|
>| [...]
>|
>| There is no clear answer as to what is best. Personally, I can't stand
>| native TrueType hinted fonts anymore, they look too distorted to me,
>| even if their contrast is better. My favorite Linux distribution is
>| Ubuntu at the moment, and the first thing I do after installing it is
>| to wipe the version of FreeType provided with it to get rid of the
>| bytecode interpreter :o)
>|
>| Also, I still don't understand why Debian and Ubuntu keep
>| distributing patent-infringing code in FreeType, while they keep
>| MP3 and DVD playback out of their normal installs. I'm not even
>| sure it's DFSG compliant...
> `----
>
> http://www.osnews.com/story.php/18166/Interview-with-David-Turner-of-Freetype/
>
Interesting... however, it should be noted that software patents only
apply in the US, Canada, Mexico (any others in Nafta?) and Australia, so
this "infringement" doesn't affect most people on the planet.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |
|
|
