FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 11-19-2007, 01:04 PM
Florian Weimer
 
Default What to do when the LaTeX sources are missing, but an XML equivalent was rewritten from scratch ?

* Norbert Preining:

> On Mo, 19 Nov 2007, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> The embedded fonts are still restricted, so it has to go into non-free
>
> These fonts are not the full fonts, but sub-setted. Otherwise type
> companies would NEVER allow any distribution of pdfs with their fonts.
> But they do.

But this doesn't mean that you are allowed to extract those subsets, put
them back into some .pfb file, and use them. If they were free
software, you could do that. This means it's non-free material, really.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 11-19-2007, 01:07 PM
Bernd Zeimetz
 
Default What to do when the LaTeX sources are missing, but an XML equivalent was rewritten from scratch ?

> Well, I still think that there is a difference between a PDF file and a
> binary executable, and that in any case, a PDF file is not a "program"
> in the same sense as the commands and applications we use, but since
> this discussion already happened before, I will not try to change the
> mind of the local majority. Also, to my knowledge, there are no good PDF
> editors in Debian.

There's pdfedit, which should work well enough.

But not all pdf files are editable - they can ship text as vector or
raster data.

I think we need to make a difference here if upstream's original
document is the pdf - or if the pdf was created from xml/tex/... source.
It's not common to create documentations as pdf file in pdfedit or Adobe
Acrobat, but it may happen, and then they should be allowed in main
(probably after checking for embedded fonts).


Cheers,

Bernd

--
Bernd Zeimetz
<bernd@bzed.de> <http://bzed.de/>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 11-19-2007, 01:47 PM
Norbert Preining
 
Default What to do when the LaTeX sources are missing, but an XML equivalent was rewritten from scratch ?

On Mo, 19 Nov 2007, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> I think we need to make a difference here if upstream's original
> document is the pdf - or if the pdf was created from xml/tex/... source.
> It's not common to create documentations as pdf file in pdfedit or Adobe
> Acrobat, but it may happen, and then they should be allowed in main
> (probably after checking for embedded fonts).

Completely agreed. What would be the source in this case?

Best wishes

Norbert

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at> Vienna University of Technology
Debian Developer <preining@debian.org> Debian TeX Group
gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOFF (vb.)
To deny indignantly something which is palpably true.
--- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 11-19-2007, 01:48 PM
Norbert Preining
 
Default What to do when the LaTeX sources are missing, but an XML equivalent was rewritten from scratch ?

On Mo, 19 Nov 2007, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > These fonts are not the full fonts, but sub-setted. Otherwise type
> > companies would NEVER allow any distribution of pdfs with their fonts.
> > But they do.
>
> But this doesn't mean that you are allowed to extract those subsets, put

Sorry, this is wrong. If I have received a pdf from Adobes web site I
have no contract with them. Not at all. That's the reason why
sub-settings was invented. What you are talking about is full font
inclusion.

Best wishes

Norbert

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at> Vienna University of Technology
Debian Developer <preining@debian.org> Debian TeX Group
gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LUTON (n.)
The horseshoe-shaped rug which goes around a lavatory seat.
--- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 11-19-2007, 02:30 PM
Florian Weimer
 
Default What to do when the LaTeX sources are missing, but an XML equivalent was rewritten from scratch ?

* Norbert Preining:

> On Mo, 19 Nov 2007, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> > These fonts are not the full fonts, but sub-setted. Otherwise type
>> > companies would NEVER allow any distribution of pdfs with their fonts.
>> > But they do.
>>
>> But this doesn't mean that you are allowed to extract those subsets, put
>
> Sorry, this is wrong.

What part?

It's not allowed to create a font based on font subsets from random PDF
files downloaded from the net (chances are that once you've got a
substantial selection, the fonts are covered in full). Do you disagree
with this statement?


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 11-19-2007, 07:51 PM
Russ Allbery
 
Default What to do when the LaTeX sources are missing, but an XML equivalent was rewritten from scratch ?

Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at> writes:
> On Mo, 19 Nov 2007, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Norbert Preining:

>>> These fonts are not the full fonts, but sub-setted. Otherwise type
>>> companies would NEVER allow any distribution of pdfs with their fonts.
>>> But they do.

>> But this doesn't mean that you are allowed to extract those subsets, put

> Sorry, this is wrong. If I have received a pdf from Adobes web site I
> have no contract with them. Not at all. That's the reason why
> sub-settings was invented. What you are talking about is full font
> inclusion.

In the absence of an explicit copyright license, Debian has generally
taken the conservative position that just because something is available
for download doesn't grant an implicit license, and hence doesn't mean
that you can redistribute it or make any derivative work from it
(including extracting pieces of it).

The holders of copyright rights on the fonts still have those rights even
if you have no explicit contract with Adobe when you downloaded the
document.

--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 11-19-2007, 08:04 PM
Norbert Preining
 
Default What to do when the LaTeX sources are missing, but an XML equivalent was rewritten from scratch ?

On Mo, 19 Nov 2007, Russ Allbery wrote:
> In the absence of an explicit copyright license, Debian has generally
> taken the conservative position that just because something is available
> for download doesn't grant an implicit license, and hence doesn't mean
> that you can redistribute it or make any derivative work from it
> (including extracting pieces of it).

Assume that author X bought the fonts, embedded them into a document and
put an article using these fonts on his web page with the statement: The
document is free to use and distribute. The author is acting strictly
conforming to the license granted to him by the font company.

Best wishes

Norbert

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at> Vienna University of Technology
Debian Developer <preining@debian.org> Debian TeX Group
gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BENBURB
The sort of man who becomes a returning officer.
--- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 11-19-2007, 08:26 PM
Russ Allbery
 
Default What to do when the LaTeX sources are missing, but an XML equivalent was rewritten from scratch ?

Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at> writes:
> On Mo, 19 Nov 2007, Russ Allbery wrote:

>> In the absence of an explicit copyright license, Debian has generally
>> taken the conservative position that just because something is
>> available for download doesn't grant an implicit license, and hence
>> doesn't mean that you can redistribute it or make any derivative work
>> from it (including extracting pieces of it).

> Assume that author X bought the fonts, embedded them into a document and
> put an article using these fonts on his web page with the statement: The
> document is free to use and distribute. The author is acting strictly
> conforming to the license granted to him by the font company.

If that's the case, then that's great. As a paranoid Debian package
maintainer, I'd prefer it if upstream would include a copy of the license
granted by the font company.

Of course, that free to use and distribute is not sufficient for Debian
main. They would also have to grant a license to create derivative works
and distribute those derivative works, including the derivative work of
extracting the fonts and distributing them alone. That's why I'd like to
see the original font license so that it's possible to verify that the
correct rights are granted.

If that isn't possible, I think it's kind of a murky area. I'm not sure
I'd support going on a crusade against such documents, but I'd much rather
see all documents in Debian have a clear provenance, including being built
from fonts in Debian.

(Full disclosure: one of my packages has PDF files with no source because
the source has been lost and not even upstream has anything but pure PDF
files. I gave it a lot of thought before including them. They're the
only available documentation of certain protocol issues, so they're
useful, but I'm still not clear on whether they're really DFSG-happy.)

--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 11-19-2007, 08:49 PM
Norbert Preining
 
Default What to do when the LaTeX sources are missing, but an XML equivalent was rewritten from scratch ?

On Mo, 19 Nov 2007, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Of course, that free to use and distribute is not sufficient for Debian
> main. They would also have to grant a license to create derivative works
> and distribute those derivative works, including the derivative work of

Argg, yes, here we are again. What matters to me is that a user can use
the INFORMATION in the document, i.e. the actual source and use it in
case he makes a derived work.

And it matters to me that people can get optimal typographic quality.

So either we have to distribute crippled versions of many documents,
crippled only in the sense that yes, all the information/text is there,
but the layout and design is crippled. Or we do not distribute them at
all.

That is a very bad option, sorry.

Maybe it is that I am one of the few who CARE for design and typographic
quality.

Do the DFSG apply to design???

What does it mean that a design is free?

I knew in advance that this discussion is useless. What a pity for most
of our users to get only crippled versions of documents, not nice and
not beautiful. As DEK says at the beginning of the TeX book:

Go forth and create beautiful documents.

Well, we are doomed to ship crippled variants of beautiful documents.

> If that isn't possible, I think it's kind of a murky area. I'm not sure
> I'd support going on a crusade against such documents, but I'd much rather
> see all documents in Debian have a clear provenance, including being built
> from fonts in Debian.

Well, we can restrict us even further, but in the typographic world this
is unfortunately a pain-in-the-ass.

Take, as a VERY NICE example the fontinstallationguide.pdf by Philip
Lehman. It is distributed with a nice pdf and the source code (besides
others). The pdf uses many commercial fonts (like Minion, Adobe
Garamond, ...). It is a beautiful document, worth to be bound as book,
worth to be read, full of wonderful information. The design makes it
even better, an example of art and technique.

Now take the source code, it is under GPL, it states:
% Note that the document preamble was altered in such a way that the file
% requires a standard class and publicly available packages only, all of which
% can be found at CTAN. The body is almost unmodified. I have essentially
% removed the original title page and any graphics to ensure that the file is
% self-contained and can be compiled without further modification. Most
% packages employed in this file are standard and should be supplied by all Tex
% distributions. Any non-standard packages you might be lacking are available
% from CTAN.
%
% I have not made any attempt at polishing the layout since this file is not
% intended for typesetting in its present form. It is mainly provided for the
% sake of translators and anyone interested in using the content under the
% terms of the GNU FDL.

So what options do we have:
- either we distribute the source code plus the pdf generated from it,
which will give the users a document which is "NOT INTENDED FOR
TYPESETTING" (from the above statement),

- or we ship the nice pdf and the source code

In both cases the user has the FULL RIGHT over the source code, can use
it in any way he likes. Reuse it, alter it, etc etc. But in the second
case he ALSO (!!!!!) has the right to have a nice beautiful well
designed document.

So do we TAKE rights from the users or GIVE them rights?

Answers please?

Are we caring for users? And their rights? Then why take away their
right to have something well designed?


Best wishes

Norbert

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at> Vienna University of Technology
Debian Developer <preining@debian.org> Debian TeX Group
gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOSCASTLE
A huge pyramid of tin cans placed just inside the entrance to a
supermarket.
--- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 11-19-2007, 08:52 PM
Norbert Preining
 
Default What to do when the LaTeX sources are missing, but an XML equivalent was rewritten from scratch ?

On Mo, 19 Nov 2007, Don Armstrong wrote:
> If the author uses the pdf, it's the pdf. If the author uses the tex,

Umpf, how do you proof/ensure that the source of a pdf is the pdf?
I hope you don't trust the "PDF Producer" field and similar?

So, we are settled, I could - just for the sake of discussion - say that
the sources of all our pdfs are the pdfs itself, just altered to
mentiond pdftex in ther "PDF Producers" field, but this is just a joke.

Don't get me wrong: I agree with you that the source of the pdf is the
pdf and SHOULD BE included in Debian. But I want to get more than that.
I want to get the freedom to design.

Best wishes

Norbert

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at> Vienna University of Technology
Debian Developer <preining@debian.org> Debian TeX Group
gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BALDOCK
The sharp prong on the top of a tree stump where the tree has snapped
off before being completely sawn through.
--- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 04:45 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org