Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 18:47:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Mikhail Teterin <mi@misha.privatelabs.com> To: kkonstan@daemon.gr 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: <200105022247.f42MlUC22932@misha.privatelabs.com> In-Reply-To: <3AF05949.9DE5BBDC@daemon.gr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2 May, Konstantinos Konstantinidis wrote:
>> > 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!
I use it and it makes sense to me. Do it :) If someone fails to "hold
peace", you can remove it, right?
>> 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.
May I suggest _always_ installing to ${LOCALBASE} and only condition the
fonts.{dir|scale} on WITHOUT_X11? You may also take a look at creating a
Fontmap file for ghostscript :-) This work should eventually be
generalized into something like bsd.fonts.mk.
>> 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
Yes, I read it. It comes with every font as the readme.txt.
> 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.
I think, this applies the fonts themselves -- you are not supposed to
add a character and call it your own font... Besides, any discrepancies
in a legal document shall be interpreted against the document's author.
But at any rate, I think we can make the package available for free
download (remove NO_PACKAGE). Just make sure to install one of the
readme.txt as eula.txt (or license.txt) in the same directory. If MS
suddenly wants us to remove the package, we can always do that later.
This would be my aproach, but I don't know what the consensus is...
> 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.
IMHO, too messy and not worth it...
> 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.
So much so, that I did not even see it, although I read the eula.
> I really need some comments regarding these matters - koi8-r, and this
> weird packaging scheme to solve the licensing issues.
Do the koi8-ru -> koi8-u. As for the legal issues -- let's see what
others say :) Thanks!
-mi
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?200105022247.f42MlUC22932>