$B$3$l$b$I$J$?$+E>Aw$h$m$7$/!#(B
> $B$A$J$_$K;d$O$A$H:#K;$7$$>u67$J$N$G!"%*%U%#%7%c%k$K2?$+=P$9$N$O?tF|F0$1(B
> $B$=$&$K$J$$$G$9!#(B
$BIpF#$5$s!"$46lO+$5$^$G$9!#$A$g$C$H(Bdebian-legal$B$G$N5DO@$bMn$ACe$$$?$h$&$J(B
$B$N$G5^$,$J$$>u67$G$9$M!#$`$7$m!"$3$N7k2L$r@8$+$7$7$C$+$j$H$7$?%j%/%(%9%H(B
$B$r$8$C$/$j:n@.$7!"$$$AAa$$LdBj2r7h$r$a$6$7$^$7$g$&!#(B
> $B$I$&$b!"0J2<$N(BHenning Makholm$B$+$i$N%/%i%$%F%j%"$rK~$?$9I,MW$,$"$j$=$&(B
> $B$G$9!#(B
>
> > It ought only to happen if a plausible case can be made that keeping the
> > package/file in the distribution can actively harm users and/or mirror
> > operators.
$B$3$N$"$H>e@n$5$s$N%]%9%H$K$7$C$+$j%3%a%s%H$7$F$$$^$9!#$"$^$j2M6u$NL?Bj(B
$B$K4X$7$F5DO@$9$k$h$j<B<AE*$KOC$9$[$&$,$$$$$H9M$($^$9!#:G=*7hCG$O!"(B
Henning$B$G$O$J$/(BJoey$B$G$9$+$i!#(B
$B<B:]$N(Bproposed-update$B$X$N%"%C%W%m!<%I>u67$d%F%9%H>u67$I$J$?$+(B
$B%l%]!<%H$7$FD:$1$^$9!#%P%C%/%]!<%H$GBP1~$G$-$k$N$O$d$O$j:o=|$h$j(B
$BF~$l49$($N$[$&$,$$$$$H;W$$$^$9!#(B
$B$I$&$b(Bproposed-update$B$,$&$^$/=&$($^$;$s!#(BPackage$B$,$J$$$N$,IaDL$J$s$G$7$g(B
$B$&$+!)(B
$B0lHV?4G[$7$F$$$k$N$O!"#3E@!#(B
$B2a5n$K:n$C$?(BPS$B%U%!%$%k$,%W%j%s%H$G$-$k$+!)(B
$B$A$c$s$H4XO"$N(Bproposed-update$B$,%"%C%W%m!<%I$5$l$?$+!)(B
GS($B#6(B)$B$,%3%A%U%)%s%H$G$*$+$7$/$J$i$J$$$+!)(B
$B2?$i$+$N(BVIRTUAL PACKAGE$B$r2C$($k$[$&$,$$$$$N$+!)(B
$B$5$9$,$K$3$l$i$KL@3N$J2sEz$,$G$-L5$$$H$&$^$/9T$-$^$;$s!#(B
$B$I$J$?$+$^$H$a$FD:$1$^$9$+!)(B
> $B$^$?!"$h$j0BA4:v$H$7$F!"%a!<%k$O(BDebianJP$BM};v$d3F%Q%C%1!<%8$N%a%s%F%J!<(B
> $BO"L>$H$7$FD:$1$k$H$"$j$,$?$$$G$9!#(B
...
> PS: Draft$BI,MW$J$i9M$($^$9!#(B $B$^$?E>AwI,MW$"$l$P$h$m$7$/!#(B
$B$A$g$C$H$^$@Cn?)$$$@$i$1$G$9$,(BDraft$B:n$C$F$_$^$7$?!#$3$s$J46$8$N%a!<%k$N(B
$B?w7?$KITB-ItJ,$rJd$C$?8e$G(BDebian-devel$B$KIpF#$5$s$+$I$J$?$+$iAw$C$F$$$?(B
$B$@$-!"$"$^$j%3!<%J!<%1!<%9$NL5LS$J5DO@$r$;$:$K$9$9$a$k$N$O$$$+$,$G$7$g(B
$B$&$+!#(B($B$+$J$j9S$$1QJ8$G$4$a$s$J$5$$(B)
Followings are intendede to be sent to Debian-devel/-legal by Muto-san
or any other representative.($B$"$/$^$G?w7?$G$9(B)
<=== DRAFT for Debian JP ===>
Dear Debian Developers,
Debian JP Project [*1] would like to update Debian Project over the Japanese
fonts issues [Original reports: See *2].
I am speaking as the leading elected boad member of Debian JP
project which represents practically all Japanese Debian Developers.
I can assure you this is the consensus between Japanese develpers over
the situation.
Fonts in question are:
o ttf-xtt-watanabe-mincho remove
o ttf-xwatanabe-mincho remove
o watanabe-vfont remove
o ttf-xtt-wadalab-gothic remove
o xfonts-intl-japanese-big replace with proposed update
o ttf-kochi-mincho replace with proposed update
o ttf-kochi-mincho-naga10 replace with proposed update
<question>
* Is this correct?
</question>
Please note hbf-kanji48 is not affected. Its "Description" was wrong
and data set was independent of Hitachi derivative data.
== Background:
Hitachi claims very broad right over the fonts at their web [*3] and the
message we are aware of [*4]. Please note that in there Hitachi is
showing some level of goodwill to Linux distributions with:
> (2) Use in Linux System
> Although the above font is being used in Linux system without the
> approval of Hitachi and TB, we will grant the authorization to use it on
> a limited range in order to cooperate with the promotion activities of
> Linux system.
(Based on this, no short term threat exists but threat is real.)
Hitachi's recent action prompted many active upstrean font developers in
Japan to distance their activity by avoiding data set related to
Hitachi. [*5]
If Hitachi's claim is the legitimate one, these affected packages
become non-free in DSFG. This was the reason behind the oroginal
request from Debian JP.
The discussion on the debian-legal discussion [*6] concluded that
Hitachi has not demonstrated sufficient facts to Debian which requires
us to remove or replace pertinent packages in the stable archive based
on the *license* *violation* since Hitachi's exclusive right over fonts
itself has not been established. Thus the original package removal
request was stalled and, in the meantime, new point stable release of
Debian woody 3.0r2 was published.
== Reasons for the new requests for removal/replacement:
New requests are not based on the licensing issues but the question "Why
we bother to keep these old packages for no practical benefits?". For
all practical purposes such as nicer looking fonts on screen or on
printer and better CD distributions across Japan, it is the benefit of
Debian to impliment these changes requested in the original requests.
Thus we are asking release manager to evaluate these requests and
impliment them in near future as a part of woody 3.0r3 soon.
(Also to ftp-manager to take appropriate actions for the
testing/unstable archive which were requested from the package
maintainers.)
== Facts behind the new requests for removal/replacement:
First let me draw attention to the fact that so called problematic
watanabe-fonts are considered aestetically not as attractive as newer
updated problem-free kochi-fonts. So if appropriate (virtual packages
and) updated kochi-fonts are provided, user will not miss anything.
<question>
* Do we need virtual package for the ease of transition?
</question>
We, Debian JP members, are also keenly aware of the fact CD
distributors in the most affected region, i.e., Japan, are quite uneasy
about the inclusion of these fonts [*7] and already are proactively
removing them from the CD set. So there is tangible negatives of
loosing major "official CD" distributors under current situation.
<question>
* Do these customized CDs have "official" name stripped?
</question>
Since then, proposed update packages are uploaded and tested by many
people to assess possible pit-falls.
<question-suggestion>
* How far we are in providing new updated packages?
* List known issues for "stable" only.
* Lists improvement anticipated.
* Keep "unstable" issues within BTS to avoid confusuion.
</question-suggestion>
In addition, we should document the reasons behind this non-standard
changes and make users and vendors aware of the issues involved.
We will update the bug report to the maintainers of each package with
-maintonly@xxxxx and
ask ftp maintainers to accomodate corresponding changes to the unstable
too.
Regards,
--
Debian JP Project Leader
Kenshi Muto??????????????????????????????? who ever sent this :-)
kmuto@debian.org
*1) http://www.debian.or.jp
*2) http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200310/msg00673.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200310/msg00142.html
*3) http://www.hitachi-printingsolutions.co.jp/topix/release/030929.html
http://www.hitachi-printingsolutions.com/topics/release/030929.html
*4) (Non-ASCII but readable enough under ASCII.)
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200310/msg00323.html
*5) http://wiki.fdiary.net/font/?stolenbitmap (Japanese)
*6) The entire theard from
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200311/msg00153.html
</=== DRAFT for Debian JP ===>
Osamu
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature