bugFree UCS Outline Fonts - Bugs: bug #33449, INSTALL file not conform to FSF's...

 
 

bug #33449: INSTALL file not conform to FSF's policy

Submitted by:  None
Submitted on:  Tue 31 May 2011 06:37:48 PM UTC  
 
Category: documentationSeverity: 3 - Normal
Item Group: NoneStatus: Fixed
Privacy: PublicAssigned to: Steve White <Stevan_White>
Open/Closed: ClosedRelease: 2010-09-19

Add a New Comment(Rich Markup)
   

You are not logged in

Please log in, so followups can be emailed to you.

 

(Jump to the original submission Jump to the original submission)

Sun 11 Sep 2011 06:55:15 PM UTC, comment #11:

Steve, can you please send me the current text of the INSTALL file?

Karl Berry <karl>
Sun 11 Sep 2011 12:03:20 PM UTC, comment #10:

Hello

Karl, thank you for your comment.

The issue discussed in detail in http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/References.html supports rather my point of view.

There one reads

"When a non-free program or system is well known, you can mention it in passing—that is harmless, since users who might want to use it probably already know about it. For instance, it is fine to explain how to build your package on top of some widely used non-free operating system, or how to use it together with some widely used non-free program."

Which beatifully applies on how I should integrate the use of GNU Freefont and a well-known widely used proprietary word processor or a well-known widely used proprietary document viewer.

There one also reads:

"Sometimes a program is free software in itself but depends on a non-free platform in order to run. For instance, many Java programs depend on some non-free Java libraries. To recommend or promote such a program is to promote the other programs it needs. This is why we are careful about listing Java programs in the Free Software Directory: we don’t want to promote the non-free Java libraries."

And here is where I wanted to get.

You can say: This is my free software, take it. If you already have these and these particular proprietary softwares, know that you can use them with my free software this and this way. But if you don't have them, don't worry, you can still use my free software with other softwares, some free, some proprietary. My free software COOPERATES with proprietary software, which is good in some instances.

You can't say: This is my free software, take it. Notice, though, that if you wish to use it at all, you shall have to get a particular piece of proprietary software, without which my free software will be totally useless for you. My free software DEPENDS ON proprietary software, which is bad in whichever instance.

And the latter is what happens with GNU Freefont when what you have is Windows 95 which lacks ATM.

Once it seems technically impossible to make GNU Freefont to work on Windows 95 without the need to install ATM, we must conclude that GNU Freefont is something people can't expect to use with Windows 95.

Free software isn't free if it has proprietary dependencies.

If on one platform my free software works fine without any proprietary dependencies but on a second platform my free software can't work without them, then I say to people:
1. My free software works all right on these platforms
2. My free software isn't expected to work on these other platforms. In some cases it might work, but there is nothing from my developer's position that I can do in order to have it work in all cases.

Let's say I have Windows 95 and I cannot (though I wished) get rid of it. Yet I'm willing to use GNU Freefont. On the other hand, I'm not willing to use ATM, and you know why? Because I used to be a caretaker at Adobe Inc and one day their boss kicked me in the arse, while I was polishing their bloody floor!

So, there comes the day when I knock on GNU's door and we have this conversation:
- Hi GNU, how's it going?
- Nice, man. And how're the kids at home?
- We're good. So, I heard you have some fonts, could you spare me some?
- Oh, yes, they've just arrived. Wait a second. Here they are.
- So, I just put them in and there they go.
- Yes, basically. What OS you have now?
- Windows 95.
- No, man, with that one they won't work. You have to go to Adobe's place first for the ATM.
- What the f**ck!?
- Come on, man. I know you had that little question with the fellow. But everyone is going there. It's all right. You get the ATM, it doesn't hurt. Then you go home, put the fonts inside. The kids'll go crazy. There's a new feature now ...
- Stop it there, GNU. We'll make like this.
- What?
- We'll have a little question ourselves. Just a tiny question, all right?
- What question, what?
- Just turn your back to me. Like that. Now, bend. Like that, yes. More.
- Like this?
- Yes, just like that. Now, don't you move.
- What's this for, anyway?
- Don't you worry. Now, get ready, there goes our little question... **%%$#@!%#!+?!!!

Best regards

Alisa Bezkresta

Anonymous
Wed 08 Jun 2011 08:57:12 PM UTC, comment #9:

Hi Alisa. Steve asked me to comment. (Who am I, you might well ask :)? I help rms with GNU infrastructure/administration stuff, including the maintain.texi document you cited, etc.)

I can certainly appreciate your viewpoint. However, I think what Steve wrote in the INSTALL file here is basically ok. There is no absolute prohibition against mentioning well-known proprietary software (and I think ATM certainly qualifies). That would just be sticking our heads in the sand. Rather, the idea is to mention the proprietary software in passing, to enable the free software to be used.

It seems to me this is what is being done here, though doubtless wording could be tweaked further. (Steve, could you please email me the file as it currently stands?)

The issue is discussed in detail at http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/References.html.

That's my view, FWIW ...

Thanks,
-unavailable-

Karl Berry <karl>
Wed 08 Jun 2011 12:35:10 PM UTC, comment #8:

Hello

Thank you for the reply.

I maintain that your suggestion:

"In order to use OpenType, users of Windows 95, 98 and NT 4.0 can
install Adobe's 'Type Manager Light', which may be obtained from
the Adobe web site."

is still a recommendation for proprietary software.

I insist that the goal of GNU Project is to offer a solution for people looking for freedom and not to offer good software. Trying to offer good software is the way to an end. And the end is as I mentioned: freedom.

The GNU operating system is not complete, it has weaknesses and faults. Also other non-GNU free software solutions can be weaker than proprietary counterparts. In the overall free software cannot today give people all the functions they may need. But it's not a weakness to admit so, neither should that fact not be mentioned in order not to undermine promotion of free software, because it does not undermine. Promotion of free software, at least as FSF understands it, should be on the basis of freedom as in freedom of speech, and not freedom as in "it's meant to be a nice tool".

The free software as in "it's meant to be a nice tool" is something the Ubuntu fellowship has been doing extensively for some years, sliding under the table, when one is less expecting, pieces of proprietary software that make the whole system work tip-top. Making the users say: "Very nice, this free software thing. It really works". When the truth is they're using proprietary.

GNU Project's idea is radically different.

I do not agree with your position to leave reference to proprietary software in INSTALL file.

Yet I see that this issue won't be solved with common agreement.

So now I will retreat from this discussion. I will be gathering more knowledge on the subject and meditating, after which it may happen I'll come up again with the issue in a near future.

Thank you for the attention.

Best regards.

Alisa Bezkresta

Anonymous
Wed 08 Jun 2011 11:35:19 AM UTC, comment #7:

Hi again,

My position on this stands, with the one concession I made yesterday. It is:

1) The purpose of the document is to explain how to use the
fonts in as many contexts as possible (and thus to promote
this free software alternative).

2) The remarks regarding how to use the fonts in proprietary
environments are toward the purpose (1).

3) The remarks concerning proprietary software, including
Mac OS, Windows, and ATM, are statements of fact, NOT
recommendations. They have been carefully worded as such.

Moreover:

Further verbiage is counterproductive.

It would be very counterproductive to the general goals of our community to tell users that no free-software solutions exist for their immediate needs. The goal here is to promote free software, not make it look weak.

Cheers!

Steve White <Stevan_White>
Project AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Wed 08 Jun 2011 09:23:06 AM UTC, comment #6:

Hello

Thank you for the reply.

I've been gathering some knowledge about this subject.

I came to understand that installation of ATM in Windows 95/98/NT is a requisite to using OpenType fonts at all. In particular it's not possible to use a proprietary OpenType font in Windows 95/98/NT without having ATM installed. This I understand only now.

Before I thought that perhaps the need to install ATM was just an idiosyncrasy of GNU FreeFont OpenType.

One of your last sentences:

"So in fact, if no mention of the ATM option is stated, many users will conclude that they cannot use FreeFont on their system, and so must resort to some proprietary font."

made me believe even further that the need to install ATM is a particular of GNU FreeFont OpenType, and that with some appropriate proprietary font one could use OpenType in Windows 95/98/NT without ATM.

Now I know it's not so. I even came to know that ATM is embedded in Windows 2000 and later versions, and because of it OpenType works on those systems.

Now, I imagine the situation when a user of Windows 95/08/NT needs to use OpenType. No matter which font he chooses, he/she will have to install ATM. In this case it will be better that he has ATM and GNU FreeFont than if he had ATM and a proprietary font. But why such a user would prefer to install ATM in his/her Windows 95/98/NT rather than to change to a free OS? What about all those people who needing to use OpenType, having a Windows 95/98/NT and confronted with the fact they need to install ATM, they choose to change to a free OS? Now, there is also the case of those that want not or cannot change to a free OS and accept to install ATM. But in GNU Project one can't recommend such a solution. Eventually these people will learn how to solve their problem, but from other sources than GNU Project. What GNU FreeFont may clarify is that if OpenType doesn't work on Windows 95/98/NT, that may not be GNU FreeFont's fault but the lack of something. If that something passes by installing proprietary software, it's no business of GNU to discuss proprietary software's state of the art and proprietary solutions for problems encountered. GNU's business is to offer a solution for people looking for freedom, not for people looking for useful tools. If by chance someone looking for useful tools finds GNU and sees it's useful, that's nice. But GNU's goal from the very beginning and what still is its core spirit is to offer freedom, not to offer good tools. That the tools should be good is important, otherwise even people looking for freedom couldn't use them at all, those tools wouldn't free them at all. But that tools should be good is not the goal, it's the way.

Your suggestion for a substitute of Issue:

"In order to use OpenType, users of Windows 95, 98 and NT 4.0 can
install Adobe's 'Type Manager Light', which may be obtained from
the Adobe web site."

is still a recommendation of a solution that passes through proprietary software.

Users of Windows 95/98/NT needing to use OpenType and experimenting with GNU FreeFont may realise it doesn't work, and INSTALL file could say that this may not be a problem with GNU FreeFont. The problem may be the lacking of some additional software. The INSTALL file may admit that in such a case there is no known free software solution to the problem. It may also offer other solutions, for instance: don't use OpenType at all or use an OS that supports OpenType if you need OpenType so much (a free OS of course).

I will now write a piece of text I name "Extract-changed2" which I propose as a substitute to Extract:

"
Windows 95/98/NT/2000/XP; Vista
-------------------------------

Note that in at least Vista, XP and 2000, the OpenType versions perform much
better than, and are recommended over, the TrueType ones.

2000/XP/Vista:

1) From the Start menu, open Control Panels
2) Drag-n-drop font files onto Fonts control panel
You may get a dialog saying
"Windows needs your permission to continue"
a) Click Continue

95/98/NT:

The font installation is similar to Vista.

You can install and use TrueType versions.

You can install OpenType versions.

If you tried to use OpenType versions and they didn't work, this may not be GNU FreeFont's fault.

You should know that in Windows 95/98/NT operating systems the ability to use fonts of the OpenType standard may depend on the requisite of having installed additional software.

You shouldn't thus be able to use any OpenType fonts (GNU FreeFont or others) unless you have such a software already installed.

As far as we know there is no free software we can recommend which solves this particular issue on Windows 95/98/NT.

If still you need to use OpenType fonts, you can consider changing to a free software operating system which supports OpenType fonts. You can find information about available free software operating systems on GNU Projects's web page http://www.gnu.org
"

You may of course prefer a different writing, and basically I'll agree with any of your choice, as long as it remains clear that this is an information about the state of the art of Windows 95/98/NT that answers the user's "Why?" but not giving a solution that passes through proprietary software, which would answer the user's "How?". Though, one can always give a solution that passes through free software, there's nothing against it in GNU Project's guidelines.

Giving the user a solution to change to a free software OS that supports OpenType fonts is an admissible solution, which by the way, someone could be missing. There may be people wanting to use OpenType in Windows 95/98/NT, and not doing so so far, because they would have to install ATM. I could see myself in such a situation.

I see no reason why to prejudge that a user of Windows 95/98/NT, confronted with the fact that he/she can't use OpenType without installing ATM, should prefer to install ATM than to change to a free OS. Now, whatever the user's preferences may be, and we shouldn't prejudge about them, in GNU Project you can propose him/her to change to a free OS, but you can't propose him/her to install ATM.

Best regards.

Alisa Bezkresta

Anonymous
Tue 07 Jun 2011 02:18:00 PM UTC, comment #5:

Hi again Alisa,

Thanks for the excerpt about GNU policy, that makes it a bit clearer.

I reviewed the adherance of the README to each point in that policy, keeping in view the intended purpose of the INSTALL file.

After these re-considerations, I'm willing to make one concession, namely: it is indeed beside the point to state that ATM is available without cost. As the INSTALL file is meant to be an installation guide, it is enough to mention it and say where it is. By the same token, it is not toward the purpose of the document for it to go on about policy issues--indeed, it would be counterproductive.

So it would read thus:

"In order to use OpenType, users of Windows 95, 98 and NT 4.0 can
install Adobe's 'Type Manager Light', which may be obtained from
the Adobe web site."

This passage was inserted some years ago, after a user claimed that FreeFont did not work on their system. So in fact, if no mention of the ATM option is stated, many users will conclude that they cannot use FreeFont on their system, and so must resort to some proprietary font. From what I understand you to be saying, this would also be contrary to your preferences.

In fact, we have spent a lot of effort to ensure that FreeFont functions on all (reasonably) modern graphical systems.

As to my personal convictions, I'm afraid you're reading in something that isn't there. I don't have anything resembling "convictions" about software (or anything else, for that matter). I strive to be pragmatic, and view convictions with great suspicion.

Thanks for pointing this issue out!

Steve White <Stevan_White>
Project AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Tue 07 Jun 2011 10:14:38 AM UTC, comment #4:

Hello

Thank you for the reply.

I understand now that we have different convictions about software.

I'll begin by taking care of the subject in discussion.

In http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain there's a document called "Information for Maintainers of GNU Software" whose point 13 - "Ethical and Philosophical Considerations" says:

"A GNU package should not recommend use of any non-free program, nor
should it require a non-free program (such as a non-free compiler or
IDE) to build. Thus, a GNU package cannot be written in a programming
language that does not have a free software implementation. Now that
GNU/Linux systems are widely available, all GNU packages should provide
full functionality on a 100% free GNU/Linux system, and should not
require any non-free software to build or function. The GNU Coding
Standards say a lot more about this issue."

Going back to Issue:

"In order to use OpenType, users of Windows 95, 98 and NT 4.0 can
install Adobe's 'Type Manager Light'. It is available for download
without cost from Adobe's web site."

It's clear that Issue recommends the use of Adobe's Type Manager Light, whether the user wishes to use OpenType.

I will now quote a piece of text from Extract-changed:

"
You can install OpenType versions, but you won't be able to use them unless you have installed in your system Adobe's Type Manager Light - a software by Adobe Systems Inc, USA.

Adobe's Type Manager Light is proprietary software and, as far as we know, there is no free software substitute.

We, the developers of GNU FreeFont, consider that, by using proprietary software, the user of it is attempting against his/her own freedom and dignity.

You can find information about the philosophy of free software in the Free Software Foundation's web page http://www.fsf.org

You can avoid installing Adobe's Type Manager Light by choosing to install TrueType versions.

Though we do not encourage the use of proprietary software, we are aware that you may find yourself in a situation where you are forced by circumstances to use OpenType versions.

If this is the case, you can try finding a free software font other than GNU FreeFont which will allow you using OpenType whitout the need to install additional proprietary software.

You can consider as well changing your operating system to a free software one which suppports OpenType versions, avoiding thus not only the need to use additonal proprietary software, as also the proprietary operating system that is Windows 95/98/NT. You can find information on available free software operating systems in GNU Project's web page http://www.gnu.org
"

It's clear that this piece of text recommends the use of Adobe's Type Manager Light, whether the user wishes to use OpenType. But clearly informs the user of the risks of using proprietary software, makes a statement of opinion and tries to guide the user to the way out of proprietary software, as much as that is possible to the user. In the overall advocates free software, though in a very particular way recommends in fact the use of a piece of proprietary software, whether the user has utter need of a function not available with free software. There's a huge difference between Issue and this piece of text from Extract-changed.

But the fact remains that both do not comply with point 13 of Information for Maintainers of GNU Software. So none of them should be in INSTALL file.

Now I'll rewrite my proposal and present a piece of text I will name "Extract-changed1" which I propose as a substitute to Extract:

"
Windows 95/98/NT/2000/XP; Vista
-------------------------------

Note that in at least Vista, XP and 2000, the OpenType versions perform much
better than, and are recommended over, the TrueType ones.

  • 2000/XP/Vista:

1) From the Start menu, open Control Panels
2) Drag-n-drop font files onto Fonts control panel
You may get a dialog saying
"Windows needs your permission to continue"
a) Click Continue

  • 95/98/NT:

The font installation is similar to Vista.

You can install and use TrueType versions.

Although you can install OpenType versions, in general they will not work.

If you need to use OpenType versions, you can consider changing your operating system to a free software one which suppports OpenType versions. You can find information on available free software operating systems in GNU Project's web page http://www.gnu.org
"

I hope I have this way shown the existence of an error.
I also proposed a correction.
If you agree that the error indeed exists, you may have a different proposal. If that is the case, perhaps you wouldn't mind of showing it to me before the changes actually take place.

Now to a different matter:

You say:
"My understanding of the mission of the FSF is to help free software authors protect their free code from being hijacked into proprietary software (an unfortunately often occurrance)."

That's correct, except for an article: that's not the mission of FSF, that's a mission of FSF.

On their main web page fsf.org, there's a "What we do" title, and a 4 point list of things they do. They do more than those 4, but I think they chose to list those 4 there on the main page because they think those are their main missions.

In that list there's no talking of helping free software developers not to have their works hijacked into proprietary software.

In that list on the fourth point there's talking of GNU GPL. But GNU GPL is not so much about protecting developers' rights as about protecting users' rights. The mechanism of copyleft is that a developer of proprietary software can't take a piece of software under GNU GPL, put it in his/her own code and go distributing the whole as proprietary for people to use. Because it's the use of proprietary software that hurts one's freedom.

A secondary efect of copyleft is that is a good incentive to developers of software who whish that their work won't be used by others to develop proprietary versions. But if such a developer released his/her work into public domain and had his/her work taken by a proprietary software developer, by no means that would be hurting the freedom of the first developer. That would be at most hurting the freedom of the users of the software released by the second developer.

Though copyleft may be a good incentive for many developers who don't like to have their work hijacked, FSF's goal is rather to stand on guard against what can or could hurt people's freedom when it comes to software and not to support people finding solutions for things not related to freedom.

When one comes to that main page the first one gets to read about what they do is: "The FSF advocates for free software ideals as outlined in the Free Software Definition [...]".

One just has to go further and one sees:
- they work for adoption of free software and free media formats
- they organize activist campaigns against threats to user freedom
- they promote completely free software distributions of GNU/Linux

So, as much as I get to understand, FSF is not only a charitable organisation, but mainly an organisation that advocates an ideology and strives for the implementation and enactment of that ideology in the real world.

You say:
"The FSF is not against proprietary code."

Does that mean that to FSF proprietary code is a good thing, though they have a preference for free one?
Something of the like: tea is all right, but I prefer coffee.

In Free Software Definiton they present a sequence of postulates they say software should obey in order to be considered free.

One reads in Free Software Definiton a sequence of postulates they think a software should obey in order to be called free. Let me analyse what they call freedom 0:

"The freedom to run the program, for any purpose."

Now I wonder what does this really mean. Does this mean that I have the possibility of running the program, for any purpose? Or does this mean more - that whithout that possibility my dignity as a person would be hurt?

Some lines before they say all's a matter of liberty and the word freedom is also used frequently. But it's not very clear whether without that liberty I would be hurt.

For instance. I would consider myself hurt if I couldn't have the possibility to walk on the public road when others are allowed. I want to have the liberty to walk on the public road. I would feel immensely hurt if someone forbade me that, for instance, because of the colour of my skin. On the other hand, I have a good relationship with my neighbour, and he grants me the liberty to walk on his orchard. But this good relationship could end some day. Then he might not permit anymore that I even entered his land. I wouldn't have the possibility to walk on his orchard again, but I wouldn't feel hurt because of it.

I know from other sources, not from this Free Software Definition, that they in FSF used sometimes the word "dignity" in the context that the user would hurt his/her whether he/she used proprietary software.
I'm almost sure that they are indeed against proprietary software, in the sense that they think that using proprietary software is bad for the user, bad for the user's dignity, that the user is thus hurting valuable attributes of his/her human condition.

But by the way that Free Software Definition is written, indeed one could also be tempted to interpret it as:
"We like free software because it gives us the possibility of making several things. We like so much having those possibilities that we want to use solely free software and we think that having those possibilities is so good that we wish to convince other people that they also should have all those possibilities so we campaign for them to use only free software. But by no means will it be bad for people if they stay with proprietary software, if that's their wish."

This is not the way I see free software. And I'm almost certain that FSF also doesn't see it this way.

Best regards.

Alisa Bezkresta

Anonymous
Sun 05 Jun 2011 11:00:39 PM UTC, comment #3:

Hi, Alisa,

Before we continue, we really need to know which FSF Policy you are referring to. Please just send a URL to it, then we will have a better idea where we stand.

I read through your message (more than once), and see that you are very passionate about these issues. I respect your opinions, but have to say, I don't agree with many of the things you write.

My understanding of the mission of the FSF is to help free software authors protect their free code from being hijacked into proprietary software (an unfortunately often occurrance).

The FSF is not against proprietary code. It is the right of an owner to sell their goods, and to protect them within the laws of their country.

Here is my personal statement: much proprietary software is very good, and it is also good that it is proprietary -- but good software that is free is better.

There is room enough in the world for both approaches. In fact, most of us use products of both kinds. In particular, we hope users of proprietary systems will use FreeFont not only because it is free software, but because it is useful to them.

However, we do strive to conform to the FSF policies. Again, if there is a clear case of an error here, we will correct it.

Steve White <Stevan_White>
Project AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Sun 05 Jun 2011 11:24:51 AM UTC, comment #2:

Hello

Thank you for the reply.

I wrote before that something in INSTALL file doesn't conform to FSF's policy. Now I know this was an unhappy saying.

I think that people could interpret it as: Since GNU FreeFont is a GNU Project, it must comply to FSF's policy.
Perhaps this is true, but I do not know FSF's policy or the GNU Project's organisation well enough as to make such a statement.
Anyhow, I think that this interpretation could lead the parties involved to think that this issue should be solved administratively.
That was the last of my intentions.

A better saying is:
There's something in INSTALL file that doesn't comply with the general guidelines of free software advocacy.
And that is what I wish to convince the GNU FreeFont developers of.

Before continuing with the discussion itself, I'll put things unambiguously.

STATE OF THINGS

I downloaded the files:
http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/freefont/freefont-otf-20100919.tar.gz
http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/freefont/freefont-ttf-20100919.tar.gz

After decompressing and dearchiving both files I found a plain text file named README and a plain text file named INSTALL.

I have nothing to say on the contents of README.

I will now quote a piece of text from INSTALL.

"
Windows 95/98/NT/2000/XP; Vista
-------------------------------

Note that in at least Vista, XP and 2000, the OpenType versions perform much
better than, and are recommended over, the TrueType ones.

  • Vista:

1) From the Start menu, open Control Panels
2) Drag-n-drop font files onto Fonts control panel
You may get a dialog saying
"Windows needs your permission to continue"
a) Click Continue

  • 95/98/NT:

The font installation is similar to Vista.

In order to use OpenType, users of Windows 95, 98 and NT 4.0 can
install Adobe's 'Type Manager Light'. It is available for download
without cost from Adobe's web site.

Otherwise, use the TrueType versions.
"

This piece of text will serve in the following discussion, so I'll name it "Extract".

I will now quote a piece of text from Extract:

"
In order to use OpenType, users of Windows 95, 98 and NT 4.0 can
install Adobe's 'Type Manager Light'. It is available for download
without cost from Adobe's web site.
"

This is where I see an issue. I will name this piece of text "Issue".

WHY THE DISCUSSION?

The raw interpretation of Issue is:
Information 1: In order to use OpenType versions in Windows 95/98/NT it is necessary to have installed Adobe's Type Manager Light.
Information 2: Adobe's Type Manager light is available for download from Adobe's web site.
Information 3: One can download Adobe's Type Manager light from Adobe's web site without having to pay money to Adobe.

These informations may be true, but for a free software advocate one of them is misleading (Information 3) and the whole of them is too raw. There is a lot of other information that is missing. Not every person that happens to meet GNU FreeFont and who may be considering using it is full conscious of the philosophy of free software and of the risks it poses to him/her the use of proprietary software.

The issue I raise is that in Issue the developer may potentially and unwilling lead a blindfolded user to use proprietary software.

The fact that in Extract are instructions on how MS Windows users can install GNU FreeFont is by no means an encouragement for the reader to use MS Windows. It's even a good incentive to MS Windows users to stop using proprietary fonts. But informing the reader of the possible need of installing an additonal piece of proprietary software that he may not already have, without warning the reader about the dangers it implies, that could felt as an encouragement by the reader.

PARTICULAR DISCUSSION

According to Extract:
- users of Windows 95/98/NT/2000/XP/Vista can install and use TrueType versions.
- users of Windows 95/98/NT/2000/XP/Vista can install OpenType versions.
- users of Windows 2000/XP/Vista can use OpenType versions, achieving by that way better results than using TrueType versions.
- users of Windows 95/98/NT, in order to be able to use OpenType Versions at all, must additionaly install Adobe's Type Manager Light.

From this follows, in particular, that a user of Windows 95/98/NT, unless he/she specifically wishes to use OpenType versions, he/she can avoid installing Adobe's Type Manager Light by installing TrueType versions.

Changes that I propose:
I will now write between quotes a piece of text I will name "Extract-changed", which I propose as an improvement to Extract:

"
Windows 95/98/NT/2000/XP; Vista
-------------------------------

Note that in at least Vista, XP and 2000, the OpenType versions perform much
better than, and are recommended over, the TrueType ones.

  • 2000/XP/Vista:

1) From the Start menu, open Control Panels
2) Drag-n-drop font files onto Fonts control panel
You may get a dialog saying
"Windows needs your permission to continue"
a) Click Continue

  • 95/98/NT:

The font installation is similar to Vista.

You can install and use TrueType versions.

You can install OpenType versions, but you won't be able to use them unless you have installed in your system Adobe's Type Manager Light - a software by Adobe Systems Inc, USA.

Adobe's Type Manager Light is proprietary software and, as far as we know, there is no free software substitute.

We, the developers of GNU FreeFont, consider that, by using proprietary software, the user of it is attempting against his/her own freedom and dignity.

You can find information about the philosophy of free software in the Free Software Foundation's web page http://www.fsf.org

You can avoid installing Adobe's Type Manager Light by choosing to install TrueType versions.

Though we do not encourage the use of proprietary software, we are aware that you may find yourself in a situation where you are forced by circumstances to use OpenType versions.

If this is the case, you can try finding a free software font other than GNU FreeFont which will allow you using OpenType whitout the need to install additional proprietary software.

You can consider as well changing your operating system to a free software one which suppports OpenType versions, avoiding thus not only the need to use additonal proprietary software, as also the proprietary operating system that is Windows 95/98/NT. You can find information on available free software operating systems in GNU Project's web page http://www.gnu.org
"

I will now quote a piece of text from Extract-changed:

"
If this is the case, you can try finding a free software font other than GNU FreeFont which will allow you using OpenType whitout the need to install additional proprietary software.
"

I don't know if the fact that one must install Adobe's Type Manager in order to use GNU FreeFont OpenType in Windows 95/98/NT is a particular of GNU FreeFont or of OpenType.
If it's a particular of GNU FreeFont, then perhaps there could be another font (also developed in the spirit of free software) whose OpenType versions do not force one to install additional software, and even if they do, there is a piece of free software that does the job. In this case, the quoted piece of text should remain in Extract-changed.
If it's a particular of OpenType, then the quoted piece of text should be erased from Extract-changed.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

One day a newcomer arrived to my village and asked me "What's the way to the next town?" I could have told him very simply "That way." and continue tilling my piece of land. But I didn't know if he knew the full consequences of going that way. So I felt it was my moral duty to tell him instead "That is the way. But be aware that you will have to cross treacherous swamps and deep dark forests swarming with fierce beasts. If you value your life and integrity, you should resign from going." Now, he went that way after all. I guess he had his reasons to do it. But at least my soul was in peace with that.

Millions of people use computers, and so many million different reasons there is why they use them.
There's the boy who needs his computer to look for a job, to send applications. He's unemployed. He lives alone and has very few friends. He would like to install a free software OS but he's afraid of doing that by himrself, since for him the inner wheels of a computer are product of misterious craft. What if something goes wrong? He can't afford losing his computer even for a day. He could buy a second computer and experiment with it. A good dream indeed. Most days his bowl is empty. Buy a new computer... And yet he tries as he can. He tries as much as possible that his user applications are free software. That's easy: download, push twice and follow instructions. Now he has openoffice, for instance. He is free now in that part of his life. And he hopes one day he will be free in all parts of his life and dreams of it. And he's just one in millions.

I will now quote a piece of text from Issue:

"
It is available for download without cost from Adobe's web site.
"

This is the classic saying that misleads people to think that since someone's giving it for free, let's go and get it.
When it's about apples on the marketplace, it's perfectly all right.
When it's about putting at risk two of our dearest treasures: freedom and dignity, it's far from all right.

The fact the a piece of proprietary software is costless is no incentive nor consolation.
If one finds him/herself in a situation when he/she is forced to use a piece of proprietary software and he/she will have to resign of some of his/her freedom and dignity, there is no consolation at all in that he/she gets it for no money. Though that person may be in the most terrible need for money for the most basic needs.

When I consider the issue of free software versus proprietary software, I see as irrelevant how much software costs. There is plenty of proprietary software that costs nothing and there is some free software for which one must pay, at least if one wishes to get it from a certain source.
Also having a piece of free software available on the internet for no cost may not always be the cheapest way for many people to obtain the software they need. In many parts of the world, internet access is impossible, and if possible it can be unbelievably slow and excessively expensive. Instead, one can easily go to the nearest merchant and get an illegal copy of a piece of proprietary software by an affordable price. But someone in such a region of the world may consider that his/her freedom and dignity are valuable enough as to sacrifice more of his/her money (if he/she can: in many circumstances one can't) and tries accessing the internet for downloading, thus spending a lot more on free software than he/she would on proprietary, for a question of principle.

As long as the free software philosophy is concerned:

To be free, or to be slave? That is the question.

To pay or not to pay? That is not the question.

Best regards.

Alisa Bezkresta

Anonymous
Wed 01 Jun 2011 09:05:52 AM UTC, comment #1:

Hi Alisa,

Please indicate which FSF policy you are referring to.

I'm not quite clear as to what your objection is, or what solution you are proposing. Do you think that the README suggests an enhancement that isn't necessary or for which there is an alternative? Or that it is wrong to mention the possibility of using proprietary software?

My understanding was, the OpenType versions will not work at all in older Windows systems without the ATM. If there is some other software that could be used besides ATM, I would agree the wording should be changed.

Of course ATM is proprietory, as are the Mac OS and Windows. The README does not recommend or promote them. Rather, it explains how different versions of FreeFont may be used with them.

Probably I just don't understand something. Let's just keep hashing it out, and find common ground.

Thanks for your input!

Steve White <Stevan_White>
Project AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Tue 31 May 2011 06:37:48 PM UTC, original submission:

Hello

After decompressing and dearchiving the file
http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/freefont/freefont-otf-20100919.tar.gz
I found the plain text file INSTALL

in whose line 58 I found the advice:

"Note that in at least Vista, XP and 2000, the OpenType versions perform much
better than, and are recommended over, the TrueType ones."

followed in line 71 by the suggestion:

"In order to use OpenType, users of Windows 95, 98 and NT 4.0 can install Adobe's 'Type Manager Light'. It is available for download without cost from Adobe's web site.
Otherwise, use the TrueType versions."

In
http://www.adobe.com/products/atmlight/eula.html
I found the licence for Type Manager Light from which it follows that this piece of software is proprietary.

I interpret this as: the developers of freefont, after advising the users to choose a way, suggest that the users may enhance the usability of the said way by installing proprietary software.

I'm convinced this is contrary to the policy of FSF.

But perhaps I'm not seeing the whole picture, and there's an acceptable explanation.

Best regards

Alisa Bezkresta

Anonymous

 

(Note: upload size limit is set to 16384 kB, after insertion of the required escape characters.)

Attach File(s):
   
   
Comment:
   

No files currently attached

 

Depends on the following items: None found

Items that depend on this one: None found

 

Carbon-Copy List
  • -unavailable- added by karl (Posted a comment)
  • -unavailable- added by Stevan_White (Posted a comment)
  •  

    Do you think this task is very important?
    If so, you can click here to add your encouragement to it.
    This task has 0 encouragements so far.

    Only logged-in users can vote.

     

    Please enter the title of George Orwell's famous dystopian book (it's a date):

     

     

    Follow 6 latest changes.

    Date Changed By Updated Field Previous Value => Replaced By
    Thu 03 May 2012 03:47:30 PM UTCStevan_WhiteStatusFix posted=>Fixed
      Open/ClosedOpen=>Closed
    Wed 08 Jun 2011 11:35:19 AM UTCStevan_WhiteStatusProceeding=>Fix posted
    Tue 07 Jun 2011 02:18:00 PM UTCStevan_WhiteStatusNeed info=>Proceeding
    Wed 01 Jun 2011 09:06:28 AM UTCStevan_WhiteStatusNone=>Need info
      Assigned toNone=>Stevan_White

    Back to the top


    Powered by Savane 3.1-cleanup1