Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 22:00:25 +0300 From: Konstantinos Konstantinidis <kkonstan@daemon.gr> To: Mikhail Teterin <mi@misha.privatelabs.com> Cc: ache@freebsd.org, bmah@freebsd.org, ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/x11-fonts Makefile ports/x11-fonts/ms-fonts Makefile distinfo pkg-comment pkg-descr pkg-plist Message-ID: <3AF05949.9DE5BBDC@daemon.gr> References: <200105021727.f42HR8C21782@misha.privatelabs.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mikhail Teterin wrote: > > [redirected to -ports] > > On 2 May, Konstantinos Konstantinidis wrote: > >> >> Log: > >> >> Automate the download and install of the .ttf fonts MicroSoft is > >> >> giving away on http://www.microsoft.com/typography/fontpack/default.htm > >> > > >> > Isn't this the same as the x11-fonts/webfonts port? > > > I just looked at your port to see if we could merge the good bits into > > one port, but I see that you are using the Windows 3.1/3.11 compatible > > fonts, whereas I used the Windows 9x/NT/2000 fonts (newer versions, > > more encodings etc). > > I see. Using cabextract did not occur to me, and I assumed, the *32.exe > are the same fonts, but use a different extracting program (more icons > and other bloat during extractions time). > > > What I could merge is the substitution of koi8-ru to koi8-u. I didn't > > fiddle with the encodings because I only use ISO8859-1 and -7 and > > chances were I'd break them :) Perhaps someone actually using the > > Ukrainian alphabet could enlighten us regarding this matter - until > > then I'll stick to koi8-ru which is what the cyrillic fonts that ship > > with XFree86 4.0.3 use. > > AFAIK, XFree86 only uses koi8-r: > > mi@misha:X11/fonts/cyrillic (311) grep koi8-r */fonts.dir | wc -l > 142 > mi@misha:X11/fonts/cyrillic (312) grep koi8-ru */fonts.dir | wc -l > 0 > I stand corrected - must have been something in the coffee that caused the hallucinations, but I digress :) > Let's ask AChe. Is koi8-ru the same as koi8-u, or is it a yet another > standard? The fonts worked for me (I use Ukrainian locale), but there > might be some differences I don't notice. I simply do not have an opinion regarding this matter. If you or anyone else actualy using the Cyrillic encodings think that such a substitution makes sense, I'm all for it! > Also, there are other applications for fonts (image creation, printing) > -- by themselves they don't require X_PREFIX. That's why my version > installed under ${LOCALBASE}/share. Strictly speaking, if WITHOUT_X11 is > set, the port should not even bother creating fonts.dir -- I was > planning to add this later. Good point. I'll restructure the port to have a WITHOUT_X11, in which case it would install in ${LOCALBASE} and skip all that fonts.dir nonsense. The use of those fonts in anything other than X simply did not occur to me. > Also, it seems to me (and Will), that package creation is Ok -- the .ttf > files are not modified, so the license is not broken. NO_CDROM is what > should stay on... I missed this discussion since I'm no longer subscribed to cvs-all. I thought really hard about this and decided to forbid everything just to be safe. I am not sure if removing NO_PACKAGE is OK, since the resulting packages cannot be distributed according to my interpretation of the EULA but since I am not a lawyer, I could be wrong. Here's the EULA: http://www.microsoft.com/typography/fontpack/eula.htm This clause seems to allow distributions in packaged form: * Reproduction and Distribution. You may reproduce and distribute an unlimited number of copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT; provided that each copy shall be a true and complete copy, including all copyright and trademark notices, and shall be accompanied by a copy of this EULA. Copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT may not be distributed for profit either on a standalone basis or included as part of your own product. However another seems to forbid it: * 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. The least we could do then, for NO_PACKAGE to be removed, would be to actually ship the original distfiles in the package and have a script that extracts them at post-install. No problem with that if you ask me, the do-install bit can extract the archives and generate fonts.dir and friends while package building, and then go ahead and package the distfiles instead of the .ttf's. The only thing the user would notice would be the extraction of the archives during package installation. It is not clear however if repackaging the SOFTWARE PRODUCT (sic) in a tarball is a derivative work or not! What's more, the FAQ seems to be imposing some additional restrictions: * You can distribute the files from your Web site as long as you complete our Web font registration form. You can only redistribute the fonts in their original form (.exe or .sit.hqx) and with their original file name. That registration bit is clearly unacceptable, however this was merely in the FAQ, and perhaps shouldn't be considered legally binding, since no such registration is required by the EULA. I really need some comments regarding these matters - koi8-r, and this weird packaging scheme to solve the licensing issues. I'll implement some if not all of those changes during the weekend, so if anyone has anything to contribute to this discussion, please don't neglect to CC me since I am no longer subscribed to any of the lists due to obscene workload and I only check the lists every day or two off nntp. Regards, K. Konstantinidis To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3AF05949.9DE5BBDC>