[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: [Long] Do we need a font SIG ?
- From: "Nicolas Mailhot" <nicolas mailhot laposte net>
- To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" <fedora-devel-list redhat com>
- Cc: fedora-desktop-list redhat com, fedora-i18n-list redhat com, fedora-art-list redhat com, petersen redhat com, fedora-packaging redhat com, fedora-trans-list redhat com
- Subject: Re: [Long] Do we need a font SIG ?
- Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 16:09:05 +0100 (CET)
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=317641
>> 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
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]