gnu-linux-libre
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [Parabola] TeXLive auditing


From: Michał Masłowski
Subject: Re: [GNU-linux-libre] [Parabola] TeXLive auditing
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 02:04:16 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux)

> Essentially all the hyphenation patterns were originally generated from
> wordlists that are not available.  Including US English.
>
> Although I know it is suboptimal, it seems to me that the hyphenation
> patterns are themselves source.  They can be understood and modified, on
> their own.  Many of the hyphenation pattern files were in fact modified
> by hand from patgen's output.

I don't know any other works for practical use than hyphenation patterns
or fonts where generated files can be "understood and modified, on their
own".  Thanks for the explanation.

> I believe there is an analogy with fonts.  Many forever-regarded-as-free
> fonts have an "upstream" version; all of Adobe's and Bitstream's fonts,
> say, were certainly created with proprietary tools (Fontographer,
> Ikarus, whatever).  But I think it is not wrong to consider the
> "derived" Type1's (or OTF's or whatever) as free, given their release
> under a free license.  The fonts can be used, modified, etc., on their
> own, even though in a theoretical sense they are not the ultimate
> upstream source.  Ditto hyphenation patterns.

There is no problem if we define source as the most preferred for making
changes to the work of the forms in which the work is available and is
understandable.  Probably this issue is too rare to need a more complex
source definition.

Attachment: pgpXrn1c9Fcfz.pgp
Description: PGP signature


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]