[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#26588: [PATCH 1/3] licenses: Add Bitstream Vera.
From: |
Marius Bakke |
Subject: |
bug#26588: [PATCH 1/3] licenses: Add Bitstream Vera. |
Date: |
Sat, 29 Apr 2017 16:00:42 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Notmuch/0.24.1 (https://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/25.2.1 (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) |
Clément Lassieur <address@hidden> writes:
> Marius Bakke <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Hello! Thanks for bringing this up.
>>
>> Clément Lassieur <address@hidden> 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
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature