From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Various new fonts Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 16:56:06 +0100 Message-ID: <87lgteavl5.fsf@gnu.org> References: <1486675748.2110684.876127416.10FBD981@webmail.messagingengine.com> <87vasidxff.fsf@gnu.org> <1486740477.2480750.876900224.6C957098@webmail.messagingengine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39374) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ccDYS-0001aU-Kd for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 10:56:13 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ccDYO-00010L-PO for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 10:56:12 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1486740477.2480750.876900224.6C957098@webmail.messagingengine.com> (Alex Griffin's message of "Fri, 10 Feb 2017 09:27:57 -0600") 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: Alex Griffin Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Alex Griffin skribis: > On Fri, Feb 10, 2017, at 06:48 AM, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: >> I think copying TTFs is not perfect, but I don=E2=80=99t think it contra= dicts >> the GNU FSDG. What part of the FSDG did you have in mind? > > The first two paragraphs under "License Rules." It reads to me like > fonts should be treated identically to other software and be available > in source form. Which I guess doesn't exactly mean we need to build from > source, but when a user runs `guix build -S font-foo`, they may not get > the preferred format for making changes. In the message you referred to, Mark wrote: That said, this needn't be a blocker for including the built OTF files in Guix, as long as the license permits all users to copy and redistribute them for commercial and non-commercial purposes, as these fonts are considered non-functional data. See: http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html#non-f= unctional-data And that=E2=80=99s also my thinking, that fonts are non-functional data. That said, =E2=80=9CLicense Rules=E2=80=9D also mentions fonts as an exampl= e of =E2=80=9Cdata that has direct functional applications=E2=80=9D. My take is that the font= s you submitted, for example, are =E2=80=9Cmore of an adornment to the system's software than a part of it=E2=80=9D (like the FSDG puts it), and are thus non-functional. There=E2=80=99s a fine line between functional and non-functional here, but= I think viewing these extra fonts as non-functional is a reasonable interpretation. >> I=E2=80=99m not sure which discussion you=E2=80=99re referring to, but I= think >> long-term, we should encourage font packages that build from source. >> However, I would not refuse packages that copy TTF/OTF files today >> because the other packages are not up to that standard yet. >>=20 >> WDYT? > > I would agree with that. So I guess we=E2=80=99ll apply the patches you sent, but I hereby encourage= you to consider changing them to build the fonts from source. :-) Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.