From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Petter Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add cool-retro-term. Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 13:38:47 +0200 Message-ID: <20170503133847.6921d200@mykolab.ch> References: <20170423135526.5ed9d143@mykolab.ch> <87inlvhr0y.fsf@gmail.com> <20170423231207.4adb15e7@mykolab.ch> <87vapuwvj0.fsf@gmail.com> <20170424143026.53563696@mykolab.ch> <20170425223627.47d5a3fc@centurylink.net> <20170426200933.45340e03@mykolab.ch> <20170427204754.10212a01@centurylink.net> <20170428141037.6a4038f6@mykolab.ch> <87a86x393i.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; boundary="Sig_/Yab6GbxK0V/jtXXP2cgoiJn"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44897) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d5scd-00041z-SZ for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 03 May 2017 07:39:09 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d5scZ-0004E4-IO for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 03 May 2017 07:39:07 -0400 Received: from mx.kolabnow.com ([95.128.36.1]:10650 helo=mx-out02.mykolab.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d5scZ-0004DS-6j for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 03 May 2017 07:39:03 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87a86x393i.fsf@gmail.com> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Chris Marusich Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org --Sig_/Yab6GbxK0V/jtXXP2cgoiJn Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:59:29 -0700 Chris Marusich wrote: > Petter writes: >=20 > > What do we do about the fonts without licensing info? =20 >=20 > Unfortunately, "no license" is not a free license: Yeah, I kinda figured that one just after I sent the e-mail :) >=20 > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#NoLicense >=20 > "If source code does not carry a license to give users the four > essential freedoms, then unless it has been explicitly and validly > placed in the public domain, it is not free software." >=20 > The FSDG states: >=20 > https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html >=20 > "License Rules >=20 > 'Information for practical use' includes software, documentation, > fonts, and other data that has direct functional applications. It does > not include artistic works that have an aesthetic (rather than > functional) purpose, or statements of opinion or judgment. >=20 > All information for practical use in a free distribution must be > available in source form. ('Source' means the form of the information > that is preferred for making changes to it.) >=20 > The information, and the source, must be provided under an appropriate > free license. We evaluate specific licenses and list our determinations > in our license list, with separate sections for licenses that are > suitable for software, documentation, fonts, and other useful works. If > such a work is released under a disjunction of licenses, the work is > free as long as at least one of its licenses is free; the system > developers should follow the terms of the applicable free license(s) > when they distribute and/or modify it." >=20 > The same page also has a section on fonts: >=20 > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#Fonts >=20 > "The licenses below apply to an instantiation of a design in a computer > file, not the artistic design. As far as we know, an implementation of a > design is always copyrightable. The legal status of the artistic design > is complex, and varies by jurisdiction." >=20 > To ensure that this contribution meets these guidelines and respects the > freedom of the system's users, I think we cannot include a font for > which we cannot find an associated license. If we can find a license > for the font and it is a free license, then we could include it. >=20 Thanks for this information! Licensing is a weak field for me. I've made a mental change from blacklisting fonts to whitelisting. --Sig_/Yab6GbxK0V/jtXXP2cgoiJn Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEB+Ude/iUmL3PehPCvgTmz6aYnSEFAlkJwUcACgkQvgTmz6aY nSHk+g//ePl7QsEeTkwcGOPSJEi8KJSxNi0dvyhC/G27piSk+V7zv+rlfn85rzWH utVZxZ6sne5v/1mGNJaXjmHOhZ542yfaU/UFOWWLFuNqfAf44mPxwFLDkJiu/ZgW x9CNADN/S4fIVOKB++MHC/mdHvZJ0wlgQEuTR7CK8b5KVf9hv03H3aDjIsJbGkat T83at0hl8BhgpzJoJjAXN5QAbX8ZqiOdtiEH3KDmbBiind0t+PY+SxhytFEKISDp GMlxAUd3aT+1tRGaYdny/HVOOXODneZZ2lNGuAdy6+nOGr8L8JLb3Z3h3hO3OZI6 u4Vvd9sdQFD/GE3daO/cMh04THPuGYtSqYyp7qJkWUa/HSo2daA3qlYNgbRRRuKQ ZsfrQW2fKfbojIpv+FJxSruzEnBpvExyZwfv6m7BHTCZqaiHy5y3yD0BVY3bCIQ0 RsPnRuVi+Dt1lGwbRO+BVJO7SiQoDGpmU3pcVYnzsvtI55svIKkPRR6Io+LmJVBE LRhDTpxGPPMY/hs1pfzFDOjTgf0DUEYeTtC5kpAdr8unlMglNvUnYxQMZDad3HW8 Q4ZQL3tZnOJcdYTsrjtTT6euA4DignQAG2VeNcJHCLyhjiAbT/QJHufwPXV9VKgS rudSBNCiOipmxrlad8TC7w7vDXYeXrPAawFCnSOtnQvpOQCJ+HQ= =qQRY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/Yab6GbxK0V/jtXXP2cgoiJn--