Talk:Installing Windows fonts

I think the move from my "The Microsoft fonts are high quality, but are not free (as in freedom)" to "The Microsoft fonts are high quality, but are not open source." is a bad idea.

For one, what really is the 'source' for a font? And how can it be open? I know there are bytecodes and things, but I don't know if a set of glyph outlines really has source.

But, the real issue is that OpenSource a development method. If we are saying "but whatever" the whatever should be a drawback. The lack of freedom is the drawback, not the development method.

Generally, I don't always put 'free', nor 'open source' - it depends whether rights of the user or development advantages are the focus of what's being said.

I know people might mistake this for meaning they have to pay (actually, they do have to pay for some of them...), but I think we should view readers with the sense to work these things out forthemselves. Being technically correct should be seen as necessary.

Maybe we should create a page free (as in freedom), for linking to in just such an occasion.

Future Leet 19:46 29/4/2004 GMT

How about just being direct and literal: 'The Microsoft fonts are high quality, but require agreement with Microsoft's EULA[1].'?

Digiot 18:53, Apr 29, 2004 (EDT)

Fair enough. Far better to say what somthing is than what it isn't. Since the wiki is about Linux, I'd put a one sentance summary of what this means to the user. Like:

...but require agreement with Microsoft's EULA[2] so, unlike most of your Linux system, you are not free to alter them.

Future Leet 18:28 30/4/2004 GMT