[Long] Do we need a font SIG ?

Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa at redhat.com
Mon Nov 26 14:51:34 UTC 2007

On Fri, 2007-09-14 at 13:51 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> 7. The font situation is bad enough we have a font exception to our
> FLOSS rules
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-daa717ea096fa4d9cf7b9a49b5edb36e3bda3aac
> [for example we ship Luxi even though its licensing forbids
> modification, making it non-free
> http://www.xfree86.org/current/LICENSE11.html]

Open a bug report. Let's start the process of having it removed in F9.

> 8. There are efforts to drain the font licensing swamp and promote
> FLOSS fonts (http://unifont.org/go_for_ofl/), they are aligned with
> Fedora general objectives yet Fedora has totally ignored them so far
> (cf Liberation licensing choices)

Keep in mind that Liberation licensing was a Red Hat, Inc decision, not
a Fedora decision. 

Also, we haven't totally ignored the OFL, since it is listed as the
"preferred" font license on the Fedora licensing page:


More information about the Fedora-art-list mailing list