[Long] Do we need a font SIG ?

[Nicolas Mailhot]

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