[Long] Do we need a font SIG ?

Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net
Mon Nov 26 15:09:05 UTC 2007

Le Lun 26 novembre 2007 15:51, Tom \"spot\" Callaway a écrit :
> 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:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Fonts

Wasn't the case when I wrote this :p

Many thanks,

Nicolas Mailhot

More information about the Fedora-art-list mailing list