From unknown Wed Sep 10 15:50:34 2025 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.509 (Entity 5.509) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 From: bug#32916 <32916@debbugs.gnu.org> To: bug#32916 <32916@debbugs.gnu.org> Subject: Status: font-awesome v5 build scripts are not free Reply-To: bug#32916 <32916@debbugs.gnu.org> Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 22:50:34 +0000 retitle 32916 font-awesome v5 build scripts are not free reassign 32916 guix submitter 32916 Leo Famulari severity 32916 normal thanks From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Oct 02 15:13:50 2018 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 2 Oct 2018 19:13:50 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34641 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1g7Q7C-0000wk-B6 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2018 15:13:50 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:33565) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1g7Q7A-0000wV-HS for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2018 15:13:48 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1g7Q74-0002EX-JJ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2018 15:13:43 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05 autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::11]:38687) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1g7Q74-0002EL-EH for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2018 15:13:42 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43169) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1g7Q73-0001zd-EP for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2018 15:13:42 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1g7Q70-0002DF-9F for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2018 15:13:41 -0400 Received: from wnew1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([64.147.123.26]:33029) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1g7Q6z-0002CG-Vi for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2018 15:13:38 -0400 Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailnew.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38529751; Tue, 2 Oct 2018 15:13:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 02 Oct 2018 15:13:35 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=famulari.name; h=content-type:date:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:to :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=kt9qSLuDrA+X3L LiPHVVF5qM9tThEEaPIi5hMPRutaA=; b=VhStIpMNQ7PasaQ/vPPeOqLh09J117 PjPFcBCWofBA32jcHwfUondAz/1b3t0PtcPa1HmwY4rzi/b5t3IFBG6w5METnCvN 9caDRKdQbcn1GPsESs+NazWjKt7mzIoKlkfucv3iiUUTJLB9IL/j4Z2xS4bTmo1E CrHLImhCYWCC0= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:message-id :mime-version:subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm3; bh=kt9qSLuDrA+X3LLiPHVVF5qM9tThEEaPIi5hMPRutaA=; b=SOVuiuwp HrHrimlCHvdgDQkjpWKUOJTeuMAkjSjTbRHIAcjFEY5M1GX9HfaBy6jRQmXUBwdi zHTRkQr59gwjBFqoiE4lgI4PyxTqmkoek1QI3vCrOVljVt0m1GLvoXBnGg7j7/KL nOWCXuSiAx/MBRpE+K0lFkDFTVEnRiGUM9pmSMh8f/wmTNoQ7zbBJbta44rHWW67 LzBpLDYc4dIQGkoqP2p6RcLHI9u7vp+b+zVv/AAr2sNEI90cRvC2awv0FhfDuYg2 v956EHPHlU4xdI3J7vyAQ0+49g3Y6trE9GvI1uE4C/JB9xeAHwM/RNCVWoumtHkb tTlKR37Wc/z1kQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy: Received: from localhost (unknown [172.58.201.36]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 8E6E5E4074 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2018 15:13:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2018 15:13:30 -0400 From: Leo Famulari To: bug-guix@gnu.org Subject: font-awesome v5 build scripts are not free Message-ID: <20181002191330.GA12909@jasmine.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="x+6KMIRAuhnl3hBn" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::11 X-Spam-Score: -4.1 (----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -5.1 (-----) --x+6KMIRAuhnl3hBn Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable We have a package of font-awesome, currently at version 4.7.0. It's a very simple package, installing the files generated by upstream rather than trying to rebuild them. As of version 5, the tools used to build the generated files are not free: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D902981 https://github.com/FortAwesome/Font-Awesome/issues/13467 Is this a problem for us under the FSDG? Quoting the FSDG [0]: ------ =E2=80=9CInformation for practical use=E2=80=9D includes software, document= ation, fonts, and other data that has direct functional applications. It does not include artistic works that have an aesthetic (rather than functional) purpose, or statements of opinion or judgment. All information for practical use in a free distribution must be available in source form. (=E2=80=9CSource=E2=80=9D means the form of the i= nformation that is preferred for making changes to it.) ------ Since we don't have the form of the fonts that is preferred for making changes to them, my interpretation is that we can't include font-awesome version 5. What do you think? [0] https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.en.html --x+6KMIRAuhnl3hBn Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEsFFZSPHn08G5gDigJkb6MLrKfwgFAluzw1oACgkQJkb6MLrK fwiriBAAwnYr1mDsQVMmg8VpdfWqbLIMb3UEnIHBN7pQkyQPrQp5GF54r2VY68RN FDt9ELTO8/LssD/tq8E/Bgv8HULDdQq87VhK7YwC5uJ0kF0xJ8VJIbxtN5WBAN4N CZaUXmiH0Of5lpQ1lAFh+6GcBaSQg+tfoG7IMClx1zHoApEQJnAulazeMn48Fs8b qcsiopGez3TU4jBqCctz5DuU1WKwsdWGss1I5PhLdBjPjJ1lnDpzaRuzv/yhyojH yLYZC7+WI4aCO8gr/946lNGjZjlA5+l/fs14BnC0duBZA4sOxts8cIXkfyJxLjKz 3/2PG4FOHJgSxBmDksIP0Y1MTbpnMPS7Avnm6LHt8G0I9snPbPsS1o+QHgSUWWCu qv4tCVAanoMMdM1rcKR6OenGOOIQHkDwtJQ6PelmYN3cqov3TnjnwPLgVkF+L26p +az9rAIjenXB9uJca6Sr7hRcxirXmAiZr0fcTPxpAEWgePkCkuie9DzJ10RgMMgo 6kbty5lRbUoVGaMZwSlH83JYKT9x2h/GoWrAcQta/UzPaEi1HuyXJb1EjBjPCv7l Nw9KIYWLTtdIVe8g/2Xs2LARxwymYATlcwYleNTuHIwlXmARn61rb8yWhajG+VkJ xUx78SF2O/BEJm6+g2xz2pRwg73zBi9qxtcXeXT9AX3dE4tco00= =bZKu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --x+6KMIRAuhnl3hBn-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Oct 03 05:27:53 2018 Received: (at 32916) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 Oct 2018 09:27:53 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34891 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1g7dRh-0000QR-DP for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2018 05:27:53 -0400 Received: from mail-io1-f48.google.com ([209.85.166.48]:38347) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1g7dRf-0000QE-6u for 32916@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2018 05:27:51 -0400 Received: by mail-io1-f48.google.com with SMTP id e2-v6so2765536ioh.5 for <32916@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 03 Oct 2018 02:27:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=HbEI9fZuIB/kPjNGpo3Rb924ElT+deIRR3ov06c2xW4=; b=psZB8OWAoqoufny+CuXIBh4t5H7zQWdqIY4+JHFvUNXVTFw2598uA9M0xJAIAc9UR1 Wgl6FRABUY86ZZ4aPan2s9B+g4zjQsfg+RB6OmpZObDn0PeDLEGaxjbF0T1sgQ10+6IZ lLRXB708tibF5DXvwkAIfCTCADwENrqzkqJpl7CxzILWZ7M1p18ugVyw9fd+T5Lvl3xX kNXFUOUWaoH08zss4mel17p0YhGoiFYR5KjgIR6TFkjIgPHztK8Mqd7SLfdfzBXq3Yak tUf6vuFGtbjjTFp7/QZNOcTewhj8uKckzgXk/d8qmomC1zhHgnx/0pky4H1Tceu2nIpg KOPQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=HbEI9fZuIB/kPjNGpo3Rb924ElT+deIRR3ov06c2xW4=; b=URh30ngjFEnwjyWwCVkmpay9uMDNJxH7Su2rwG0hNSSDhW2wAU1W8BkZqmK78Y7U3s 3BmAm/FTJHklHzzHJkRm5qg4neg23wuUfuVPxN4VSvDW1N1gotc0Z2fRvPRrX42h3D4S V1foFK6rr6k7vsY+mh+iiliavFaW0YwN1xQUxds/fU1hM3n906n0uUXuphr3N1O1Ftqi pjESN+Enujlc2AMtp0Sl4XVq8uZ/7dKL7DnsBvZiMBFpM7mOljP3HpPABCy7HEWZXyB3 jYmc8bGQe9oEe7+K6IBDyHq1IbJQE7tnBiLfLGZd56a58WU6Hkx/IoGuDv1Z5V+6zk+y t43Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfogVlH2wXK59nLr+9/hmARldeqkrteP8etxnBAE33z00Pllpf0+a XJUlIRw7IWwq9jgigbPsBcskQR1t6HAQO7oG2BKK X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV611SgCtSjafCbWtIycRve9ny8yXh2sa4bq5vNYVqN4zV0VNaGoq3knCIaUVBwX7FubYM4LqImjhektVAy9k1bk= X-Received: by 2002:a6b:e010:: with SMTP id z16-v6mr387528iog.44.1538558865520; Wed, 03 Oct 2018 02:27:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20181002191330.GA12909@jasmine.lan> In-Reply-To: <20181002191330.GA12909@jasmine.lan> From: =?UTF-8?Q?G=C3=A1bor_Boskovits?= Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 11:27:34 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#32916: font-awesome v5 build scripts are not free To: Leo Famulari Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a5465c05774fa6df" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 32916 Cc: 32916@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) --000000000000a5465c05774fa6df Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Leo Famulari ezt =C3=ADrta (id=C5=91pont: 2018. okt. 2.= , K, 21:14): > We have a package of font-awesome, currently at version 4.7.0. > > It's a very simple package, installing the files generated by upstream > rather than trying to rebuild them. > > As of version 5, the tools used to build the generated files are not > free: > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D902981 > https://github.com/FortAwesome/Font-Awesome/issues/13467 > > Is this a problem for us under the FSDG? Quoting the FSDG [0]: > > ------ > =E2=80=9CInformation for practical use=E2=80=9D includes software, docume= ntation, fonts, > and other data that has direct functional applications. It does not > include artistic works that have an aesthetic (rather than functional) > purpose, or statements of opinion or judgment. > > All information for practical use in a free distribution must be > available in source form. (=E2=80=9CSource=E2=80=9D means the form of the= information > that is preferred for making changes to it.) > ------ > > Since we don't have the form of the fonts that is preferred for making > changes to them, my interpretation is that we can't include font-awesome > version 5. > > What do you think? > > As far as I can see this is really a problem. It seems to me that Debian also came to that conclusion. > [0] > https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.en.html > --000000000000a5465c05774fa6df Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Leo Famulari &= lt;leo@famulari.name> ezt =C3= =ADrta (id=C5=91pont: 2018. okt. 2., K, 21:14):
We have a package of font-awesome, currently at version 4.7.0= .

It's a very simple package, installing the files generated by upstream<= br> rather than trying to rebuild them.

As of version 5, the tools used to build the generated files are not
free:

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport= .cgi?bug=3D902981
https://github.com/FortAwesome/Font-Awesome/= issues/13467

Is this a problem for us under the FSDG? Quoting the FSDG [0]:

------
=E2=80=9CInformation for practical use=E2=80=9D includes software, document= ation, fonts,
and other data that has direct functional applications. It does not
include artistic works that have an aesthetic (rather than functional)
purpose, or statements of opinion or judgment.

All information for practical use in a free distribution must be
available in source form. (=E2=80=9CSource=E2=80=9D means the form of the i= nformation
that is preferred for making changes to it.)
------

Since we don't have the form of the fonts that is preferred for making<= br> changes to them, my interpretation is that we can't include font-awesom= e
version 5.

What do you think?


As far as I can see this is really a p= roblem. It seems to me that Debian also came to that conclusion.
= =C2=A0
[0]
https://www.gnu.org/distros/f= ree-system-distribution-guidelines.en.html
--000000000000a5465c05774fa6df-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Oct 03 15:33:47 2018 Received: (at 32916) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 Oct 2018 19:33:47 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36054 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1g7mu1-0002Z2-IE for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2018 15:33:47 -0400 Received: from world.peace.net ([64.112.178.59]:57582) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1g7mtz-0002Yn-Jy for 32916@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2018 15:33:44 -0400 Received: from mhw by world.peace.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1g7mts-00038S-Nh; Wed, 03 Oct 2018 15:33:37 -0400 From: Mark H Weaver To: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: bug#32916: font-awesome v5 build scripts are not free References: <20181002191330.GA12909@jasmine.lan> Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 15:33:12 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20181002191330.GA12909@jasmine.lan> (Leo Famulari's message of "Tue, 2 Oct 2018 15:13:30 -0400") Message-ID: <87ftxmltaf.fsf@netris.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 32916 Cc: 32916@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Hi Leo, Leo Famulari writes: > We have a package of font-awesome, currently at version 4.7.0. > > It's a very simple package, installing the files generated by upstream > rather than trying to rebuild them. > > As of version 5, the tools used to build the generated files are not > free: > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D902981 > https://github.com/FortAwesome/Font-Awesome/issues/13467 > > Is this a problem for us under the FSDG? Quoting the FSDG [0]: > > ------ > =E2=80=9CInformation for practical use=E2=80=9D includes software, docume= ntation, fonts, > and other data that has direct functional applications. It does not > include artistic works that have an aesthetic (rather than functional) > purpose, or statements of opinion or judgment. > > All information for practical use in a free distribution must be > available in source form. (=E2=80=9CSource=E2=80=9D means the form of the= information > that is preferred for making changes to it.) > ------ > > Since we don't have the form of the fonts that is preferred for making > changes to them, my interpretation is that we can't include font-awesome > version 5. > > What do you think? > > [0] > https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.en.html I agree that version 5 of font-awesome does not meet the requirements of the FSDG, which states: A free system distribution should be self-hosting. This means that you must be able to develop and build the system with tools that the system provides you. As a result, a free system distribution cannot include free software that can only be built by using nonfree software. Moreover, it is doubtful that it could even be considered free software, since it is not clear how users can effectively modify the font without access to its build system, which is both proprietary and secret. FWIW, the GNU GPL v3 definition of "corresponding source" includes the build system: The =E2=80=9CCorresponding Source=E2=80=9D for a work in object code form= means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities. Therefore, I think we should keep 'font-awesome' frozen at version 4.7, with a comment explaining the situation, to prevent others from accidentally upgrading it. What do you think? Mark From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Oct 03 17:26:34 2018 Received: (at 32916) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 Oct 2018 21:26:34 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36165 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1g7ofC-0007Sk-9D for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2018 17:26:34 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:38432) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1g7ofB-0007SY-8l for 32916@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2018 17:26:33 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1g7of1-0003a4-B7 for 32916@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2018 17:26:26 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:54327) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1g7of0-0003Yv-05; Wed, 03 Oct 2018 17:26:22 -0400 Received: from [2a01:e0a:1d:7270:af76:b9b:ca24:c465] (port=35482 helo=ribbon) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1g7oez-0001xN-Ea; Wed, 03 Oct 2018 17:26:21 -0400 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) To: Mark H Weaver Subject: Re: bug#32916: font-awesome v5 build scripts are not free References: <20181002191330.GA12909@jasmine.lan> <87ftxmltaf.fsf@netris.org> Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 23:26:19 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87ftxmltaf.fsf@netris.org> (Mark H. Weaver's message of "Wed, 03 Oct 2018 15:33:12 -0400") Message-ID: <87zhvuk9hg.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 32916 Cc: 32916@debbugs.gnu.org, Leo Famulari X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -6.0 (------) Hello, Mark H Weaver skribis: > I agree that version 5 of font-awesome does not meet the requirements of > the FSDG, which states: > > A free system distribution should be self-hosting. This means that > you must be able to develop and build the system with tools that the > system provides you. As a result, a free system distribution cannot > include free software that can only be built by using nonfree > software. > > Moreover, it is doubtful that it could even be considered free software, > since it is not clear how users can effectively modify the font without > access to its build system, which is both proprietary and secret. > > FWIW, the GNU GPL v3 definition of "corresponding source" includes the > build system: > > The =E2=80=9CCorresponding Source=E2=80=9D for a work in object code fo= rm means all > the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable > work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to > control those activities. I don=E2=80=99t have a clear opinion on =E2=80=98font-awesome=E2=80=99 yet,= but I have some comments: (1) only some of our font packages are built from source (though I think we should do more of that), (2) the font might be considered =E2=80=9Cnon-functional data=E2=80=9D rather than software under= the FSDG, and (3) the font is a =E2=80=9Cfree font=E2=80=9D under a license (SIL OFL)= that doesn=E2=80=99t have a clear notion of corresponding source like GPLv3 has. Ludo=E2=80=99. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Oct 03 20:28:45 2018 Received: (at 32916) by debbugs.gnu.org; 4 Oct 2018 00:28:46 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36212 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1g7rVV-0003LB-Lx for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2018 20:28:45 -0400 Received: from world.peace.net ([64.112.178.59]:58132) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1g7rVT-0003Ks-C0 for 32916@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2018 20:28:43 -0400 Received: from mhw by world.peace.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1g7rVN-0006xI-1U; Wed, 03 Oct 2018 20:28:37 -0400 From: Mark H Weaver To: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: bug#32916: font-awesome v5 build scripts are not free References: <20181002191330.GA12909@jasmine.lan> <87ftxmltaf.fsf@netris.org> <87zhvuk9hg.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 20:28:21 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87zhvuk9hg.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic \=\?utf-8\?Q\?Court\=C3\=A8s\=22'\?\= \=\?utf-8\?Q\?s\?\= message of "Wed, 03 Oct 2018 23:26:19 +0200") Message-ID: <871s96lfmi.fsf@netris.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 32916 Cc: 32916@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Hi Ludovic, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: > Mark H Weaver skribis: > >> I agree that version 5 of font-awesome does not meet the requirements of >> the FSDG, which states: >> >> A free system distribution should be self-hosting. This means that >> you must be able to develop and build the system with tools that the >> system provides you. As a result, a free system distribution cannot >> include free software that can only be built by using nonfree >> software. >> >> Moreover, it is doubtful that it could even be considered free software, >> since it is not clear how users can effectively modify the font without >> access to its build system, which is both proprietary and secret. >> >> FWIW, the GNU GPL v3 definition of "corresponding source" includes the >> build system: >> >> The =E2=80=9CCorresponding Source=E2=80=9D for a work in object code f= orm means all >> the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable >> work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to >> control those activities. > > I don=E2=80=99t have a clear opinion on =E2=80=98font-awesome=E2=80=99 ye= t, but I have some > comments: (1) only some of our font packages are built from source > (though I think we should do more of that), (2) the font might be > considered =E2=80=9Cnon-functional data=E2=80=9D rather than software und= er the FSDG, The GNU FSDG states: License Rules =E2=80=9CInformation for practical use=E2=80=9D includes software, docum= entation, fonts, and other data that has direct functional applications. It does not include artistic works that have an aesthetic (rather than functional) purpose, or statements of opinion or judgment. All information for practical use in a free distribution must be available in source form. (=E2=80=9CSource=E2=80=9D means the form of t= he information that is preferred for making changes to it.) I think it's reasonably clear that the first paragraph above refers to the distinction between functional and non-functional data, and it specifically lists "fonts" as an example of the first category. It also associates the terms "functional" and "for practical use" with "fonts". The section on "Non-functional Data" begins with: Data that isn't functional, that doesn't do a practical job, is more of an adornment to the system's software than a part of it. [...] Note the two terms "functional", and "does a practical job" which essentially means the same thing as "for practical use". These two terms are specifically associated with "fonts" above, and are contraindicators for "Non-functional Data". This seems reasonably clear to me. What do you think? Mark From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Oct 04 05:19:19 2018 Received: (at 32916) by debbugs.gnu.org; 4 Oct 2018 09:19:19 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36331 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1g7zmw-0001a4-SL for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 04 Oct 2018 05:19:19 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:45764) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1g7zmp-0001Zj-Bs for 32916@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 04 Oct 2018 05:19:11 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1g7zmg-0006FJ-VA for 32916@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 04 Oct 2018 05:19:06 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40 autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:42347) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1g7zmg-0006Ew-K3; Thu, 04 Oct 2018 05:19:02 -0400 Received: from [193.50.110.126] (port=51534 helo=ribbon) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1g7zmg-00088k-Aq; Thu, 04 Oct 2018 05:19:02 -0400 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) To: Mark H Weaver Subject: Re: bug#32916: font-awesome v5 build scripts are not free References: <20181002191330.GA12909@jasmine.lan> <87ftxmltaf.fsf@netris.org> <87zhvuk9hg.fsf@gnu.org> <871s96lfmi.fsf@netris.org> X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 13 =?utf-8?Q?Vend=C3=A9miaire?= an 227 de la =?utf-8?Q?R=C3=A9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0x090B11993D9AEBB5 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3CE4 6455 8A84 FDC6 9DB4 0CFB 090B 1199 3D9A EBB5 X-OS: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2018 11:19:00 +0200 In-Reply-To: <871s96lfmi.fsf@netris.org> (Mark H. Weaver's message of "Wed, 03 Oct 2018 20:28:21 -0400") Message-ID: <871s96ysqj.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 32916 Cc: 32916@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -6.0 (------) Hello Mark, Mark H Weaver skribis: > ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: [...] >> I don=E2=80=99t have a clear opinion on =E2=80=98font-awesome=E2=80=99 y= et, but I have some >> comments: (1) only some of our font packages are built from source >> (though I think we should do more of that), (2) the font might be >> considered =E2=80=9Cnon-functional data=E2=80=9D rather than software un= der the FSDG, > > The GNU FSDG states: > > License Rules > > =E2=80=9CInformation for practical use=E2=80=9D includes software, doc= umentation, > fonts, and other data that has direct functional applications. It > does not include artistic works that have an aesthetic (rather than > functional) purpose, or statements of opinion or judgment. > > All information for practical use in a free distribution must be > available in source form. (=E2=80=9CSource=E2=80=9D means the form of= the > information that is preferred for making changes to it.) > > I think it's reasonably clear that the first paragraph above refers to > the distinction between functional and non-functional data, and it > specifically lists "fonts" as an example of the first category. It also > associates the terms "functional" and "for practical use" with "fonts". Indeed, I had overlooked this paragraph. I agree with your interpretation. > The section on "Non-functional Data" begins with: > > Data that isn't functional, that doesn't do a practical job, is more > of an adornment to the system's software than a part of it. [...] > > Note the two terms "functional", and "does a practical job" which > essentially means the same thing as "for practical use". These two > terms are specifically associated with "fonts" above, and are > contraindicators for "Non-functional Data". Yes, though when I read this part, I thought to myself that non-essential fonts could be regarded as an adornment to the system. (My understanding is also that game artwork is often viewed as non-functional data under the FSDG, even though I=E2=80=99d personally cons= ider that it =E2=80=9Cdoes a practical job=E2=80=9D, much more than an optional = font.) Anyway the =E2=80=9CLicense Rules=E2=80=9D paragraph above makes it clear, = I think, that fonts may not be treated as non-functional data. Thanks for clarifying! Ludo=E2=80=99. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Feb 25 19:32:54 2019 Received: (at 32916-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 26 Feb 2019 00:32:54 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51954 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gyQg2-0005Qa-G8 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 19:32:54 -0500 Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]:39841) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gyQg1-0005QM-CI for 32916-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 19:32:53 -0500 Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 326EA2210E; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 19:32:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 25 Feb 2019 19:32:48 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=famulari.name; h=date:from:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=mesmtp; bh=phdD8sOK6qjcdlwtXhWwS4/N fEzZ3Mj4kz/NOP2Evn8=; b=BbkupPD3AxK3PA+ItEcq68o0bld01N3HtLk1iOzo gZlR07eSfC578ajaNQqimYRjwhDfDp/iNbHdCBjGxRIBbiAeTBUm1WtBHqDWEuUB mtKD/eKfGxH7ajro8CRXwIUDXlSNRECbnJ4kqi+AAI/8P9Go3IIKlirlhikVGKvr 7tE= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=phdD8s OK6qjcdlwtXhWwS4/NfEzZ3Mj4kz/NOP2Evn8=; b=fT/P9H4w6rpEXhaJ0BRZZl /5Ixe1+ZLOMxNX/oDTbNVietNutG1AuPcYKP69M4le5EStrhMFu0qRJ6kf0FACSz ZEBTn/jBYmLep1UUDxaPqw8fv+a9FB3en1mhvJhFc9Oble0lO/tae08ZinCOZ2EJ GdSEVWNf7Rfk/n1xJHdX/1QtbinXwuAz4iR4c7xzjz2fDohjTTz3Vu3NW2Avyzr5 e9OR25DW/G4Ac8ILKBVQb2mRKp64JAUxm1r+u9K3jQ9+ciiikFCJdGA2Fo6P4wb0 OKuoFDK90CFZHrSWQpTeashP2QZwMTvNDGuaSzu1794NQIv0RO/+c0CnW69pK/Pw == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedutddrudekgddvfeculddtuddrgedtledrtddtmd cutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfhuthen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenuchmihhsshhinhhgucfvqfcufhhivghlugculdeftd dmnecujfgurhepfffhuffkfhggtggujggfsehgtderredtredvnecuhfhrohhmpefnvgho ucfhrghmuhhlrghrihcuoehlvghosehfrghmuhhlrghrihdrnhgrmhgvqeenucfkphepje eirdduvdegrddvtddvrddufeejnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehlvghosehf rghmuhhlrghrihdrnhgrmhgvnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd X-ME-Proxy: Received: from localhost (c-76-124-202-137.hsd1.pa.comcast.net [76.124.202.137]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 4790EE454E for <32916-done@debbugs.gnu.org>; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 19:32:47 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 19:32:46 -0500 From: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: bug#32916: font-awesome v5 build scripts are not free Message-ID: <20190226003246.GA19737@jasmine.lan> References: <20181002191330.GA12909@jasmine.lan> <87ftxmltaf.fsf@netris.org> <87zhvuk9hg.fsf@gnu.org> <871s96lfmi.fsf@netris.org> <871s96ysqj.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="SLDf9lqlvOQaIe6s" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <871s96ysqj.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.3 (2019-02-01) X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 32916-done Cc: 32916-done@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) --SLDf9lqlvOQaIe6s Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline I've added a comment warning about this issue in commit 848b3749b2e9741d2fb7c0cc531d7536474700c1. --SLDf9lqlvOQaIe6s Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEsFFZSPHn08G5gDigJkb6MLrKfwgFAlx0iS4ACgkQJkb6MLrK fwhnNQ/+Og2g1mNwmeZCRUbC2l0T+ePZKE6N/yMWjUQryumClfo6dYVhQdTtl6Yg XvdTZ1kQMAa1LngMj9YB9dMEIXF5/ue7eGBKR4mIxPYcjLS2c3VQa9oW3uQFbv+R knF2DlpAE7ZDFBgHOAGZaVLeU8GCzgPOQP2VUnd1388yTLnzLWWfnEroUBZ3Wi/w fPh2KXJtlLSBL3FWDLbB7lDsGtFlh2x1GSEtR8bHgH+9B/rmD4L/hM48CawIdHTZ KyMLvxSGwBlvaUtFMSiu6iWd4gx1m66vJ1s4nfF74EXba0T5rPv/QgfwrXQKHmG+ nDMcVGM4Evu99pTefWXL9K/vMLiwm9exFIxzYTCMYURTOuYSeuxRDvTmjPenJ6M3 KSJiaWDsSfQVtnIgzIXB7FAUHs+DpM88o3IWClVllCtmWNb4qrNGfiSfmbtW4I6H GJPyTFY3XnLgrlY51ez3dERrDbTwrENFP9YtEFpAxGlvt4tN4/5jl4FabLOuDjiP ZRslLFhRyA5SQ8uDgcygHPxeIlAsMrCe4p+zz0Ev1Y2Z4W1nuSebrz7Jg7caJGuk rzMNNbTq3/lDhzvU/1wFSU2P51f+8MqTXxMQMERQkVYEWRcOLMB4I3XzyFMGSvYR AP7SBuvP3PEm5+WyeN5sIeuBuG3kDvzJxCCp90hsdeFXZZdp5/I= =80Na -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --SLDf9lqlvOQaIe6s-- From unknown Wed Sep 10 15:50:34 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 11:24:04 +0000 User-Agent: Fakemail v42.6.9 # This is a fake control message. # # The action: # bug archived. thanks # This fakemail brought to you by your local debbugs # administrator