Re: Fonts for distribution

[Clytie Siddall <clytie riverland net au>]

Hi Simos, thanks for your reply, as always. :)

On 24/02/2006, at 12:20 AM, Simos Xenitellis wrote:
> > MJ Ray said:
> >
> > > Last I heard, the Open Font Licence got its name change clause
> > > (clause 3) wrong and prevents people making API-compatible
> > > new fonts based on OFL'd ones (that is, derived works cannot
> > > be drop-in replacements for an original). It goes far further
> > > in this restriction than the Bitstream Vera fonts, for example.
> > > The Bitstream Vera README tells you how to include a local.conf
> > > file to be a drop-in replacement, but that seems forbidden
> > > for OFL'd packages.
> > >
> > > The OFL FAQ claims it follows the DFSG, but DDs disagree. See
> > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00454.html
> > > for example. Please do not upload OFL'd fonts to main for now.
> >
> > Not that I was going to upload anything, but you get the gist.
> Hi Clytie,
> That is strange. Mr Ray said earlier,
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/11/msg00219.html

There does seem to be some, um, lack of clarity in this issue. One  
other list member and DD immediately replied and contradicted him,  
only to be told that he was non-representative. I might crawl under  
the bed and sit this one out... Conflict is not my thing.
> I have been following the progress of the OFL through "debian-legal",
> the mailing list that is supposed to make sure whether a package  
> goes to main or to non-free.
> This list appears to be a bunch of individuals that make their own  
> interpretation of licenses.
> They are so unproductive that when someone tells them, "here is our  
> draft license, please comment",
> they 1) avoid any constructive criticism, 2) wait until after the  
> draft period has passed.
> They become very protective against the criticism and tend deem  
> anything as non-free, even if
> the FSF thinks they are ok. Oh, the GFDL is "not free" either.

:(

I've noticed a lot of um, discussion. I don't know how effective it  
is. My only real knowledge of Debian is:

1. My husband and son use it, and love it, and they're both very  
picky and skilled.
2. Christian Perrier is the debian-i18n co-ordinator and does a  
terrific job, which means the Installer localization, which he  
manages, is efficient and responsive. The Level 1 file is a model for  
translator context. He (and possibly others) have recently improved  
the debconf translation, so you receive update emails. Otherwise, one  
would have pretty much no idea of where one was with the 600+ debconf  
files.
3. All other files are, um, hard to track down. If you translate  
them, they can sit for months, and I mean _lots_ of months, in the  
bug-tracking queue, not being applied. This is apparently due to  
Debian's "distributed nature". It means not being able to see your  
progress, or have your translations used in any reasonable timescale.  
I find that discouraging. So, apart from the installer, I tend not to  
spend my energy in Debian. I think that's a pity. :(

I've posted and submitted ideas about (3). In particular, what  
frustrates me greatly is that the Debian status page for my language  
shows files as incomplete or untranslated which I have had at 100%  
for the Translation Project or Gnome or other project for months!  
This could result in other translators wasting their time by trying  
to "complete" or "translate" these very old versions of those files.  
It does result in me not being able to see what I should do next,  
unless I diff their status page with all the other status pages and  
project information I have. I don't have time for that. I recently  
picked out one file I'd never heard of, and translated that, but  
that's not really a good method.

So it's a bit hard to get an all-over picture of Debian, yet, at  
least for me. :S
> References:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/08/msg00275.html
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/09/msg00004.html
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/11/threads.html#00314
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/12/threads.html#00074

:(

> http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Debian#Legal

Ouch. Uncyclopedia doesn't pull any punches. ;)

I did encounter really surprising hostility on one Debian mailing  
list, when bringing up the subject of encouraging members, new  
members in particular (a side-issue of possibly forming a separate  
list for translators of that material). It was very unpleasant, and I  
had to give it up, because I'm too sick for that sort of thing, and  
anyway, culturally it's extremely inappropriate.

However, my son spends a lot of time on a Debian support IRC channel,  
and I know he tries hard to help out newbies and users of different  
levels. We've talked about it often.

So the project seems to be "distributed" to the extent that it has  
wildly differing approaches in some cases. If this extends to  
inconsistency or inefficiency of procedure, that's something I know  
would concern people like Christian.

I did contribute to a wiki article on how people wanted to change and  
develop the i18n system at least. I don't know what's happened there.  
Certainly, on the debian-i18n list, there is a lot of enthusiasm, and  
effort being put in, so we can only hope that this is the majority  
attitude, and if so, that it creates change elsewhere in the project.

from Clytie (vi-VN, Vietnamese free-software translation team / nhÃm  
Viát hÃa phán mám tá do)
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/vi-VN