GNU bug report logs - #26588
Add some (non-free?) font licenses.

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Marius Bakke <mbakke <at> fastmail.com>
To: Clément Lassieur <clement <at> lassieur.org>
Cc: 26588 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#26588: [PATCH 1/3] licenses: Add Bitstream Vera.
Date: Mon, 01 May 2017 16:53:20 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Clément Lassieur <clement <at> lassieur.org> writes:

> Marius Bakke <mbakke <at> fastmail.com> writes:
>
>> Clément Lassieur <clement <at> lassieur.org> writes:
>>
>>> Marius Bakke <mbakke <at> fastmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Hello! Thanks for bringing this up.
>>>>
>>>> Clément Lassieur <clement <at> lassieur.org> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> * guix/licenses.scm (bitstream-vera): New variable.
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>   
>>>>> +(define bitstream-vera
>>>>> +  (license "Bitstream Vera"
>>>>> +           "https://www.gnome.org/fonts/#Final_Bitstream_Vera_Fonts"
>>>>> +           "\"The Font Software may be sold as part of a larger software package
>>>>> +but no copy of one or more of the Font Software typefaces may be sold by
>>>>> +itself.\"
>>>>> +
>>>>> +The license is non-free because of the above clause, but a Guix package is a
>>>>> +\"larger software package\"."))
>>>>
>>>> Instead of "officially recognizing" these licenses, which are unlikely
>>>> to be re-used and ostensibly non-free, perhaps we could have a
>>>> "fsdg-compatible" license procedure similar to "fsf-free". What do you
>>>> think?
>>>
>>> Well, bitstream-vera is used twice (if we include 0ad).  But anyway
>>> that's okay.  I should specify in the fsdg-compatible 'comment' argument
>>> that it is non-free, right?  Or maybe all fsdg-compatible would be
>>> non-free?
>>
>> 0ad could include (package-license font-bitstream-vera) instead. I also
>> came across this font in "Hedgewars", so it's fairly prevalent.
>>
>> The default comment of the "fsdg-compatible" (or fsdg-free as Debian
>> describes it[0]) license procedure should say something about not
>> necessarily being free, but passing FSDG criteria; but it's good to have
>> more specific comments in the actual packages.
>>
>> Anyway, just an opinion, but I think such a procedure would be nice to
>> have :)
>>
>> [0] https://packages.debian.org/sid/ttf-bitstream-vera
>
> Ok!  Here are two patches: one adds fsdg-compatible, and the other
> updates the font package.  I'll also send the 0ad update to the 0ad
> debbugs thread.

Thanks! These patches LGTM.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.