bug#26588: Add some (non-free?) font licenses.

bug#26588: Add some (non-free?) font licenses.

[Clément Lassieur]

The first patch adds Bitstream Vera license, which IMHO is non-free.
Feel free to discuss it though, I'm not sure of the comment I wrote.

The font could be added even though it is non-free because it could be
considered a "Non-fonctional data".  See
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html#non-functional-data.

The second patch adds Arev license, which is almost like Bitsteam Vera,
and is needed by 0ad-data (which I'm working on).

The third patch fixes font-bitstream-vera, which IMHO erroneously had
X11-style license.

bug#26588: [PATCH 1/3] licenses: Add Bitstream Vera.

[Clément Lassieur]

* guix/licenses.scm (bitstream-vera): New variable.
---
 guix/licenses.scm | 13 ++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/guix/licenses.scm b/guix/licenses.scm
index 7b2ac2d31..09a17b8c6 100644
--- a/guix/licenses.scm
+++ b/guix/licenses.scm
@@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
 ;;; Copyright © 2016 Fabian Harfert <fhmgufs@web.de>
 ;;; Copyright © 2016 Rene Saavedra <rennes@openmailbox.org>
 ;;; Copyright © 2016, 2017 ng0 <ng0@libertad.pw>
+;;; Copyright © 2017 Clément Lassieur <clement@lassieur.org>
 ;;;
 ;;; This file is part of GNU Guix.
 ;;;
@@ -71,7 +72,7 @@
             tcl/tk
             unlicense
             vim
-            x11 x11-style
+            x11 x11-style bitstream-vera
             zpl2.1
             zlib
             fsf-free
@@ -471,6 +472,16 @@ which may be a file:// URI pointing the package's tree."
             "Check the URI for details.  "
             comment)))
 
+(define bitstream-vera
+  (license "Bitstream Vera"
+           "https://www.gnome.org/fonts/#Final_Bitstream_Vera_Fonts"
+           "\"The Font Software may be sold as part of a larger software package
+but no copy of one or more of the Font Software typefaces may be sold by
+itself.\"
+
+The license is non-free because of the above clause, but a Guix package is a
+\"larger software package\"."))
+
 (define zpl2.1
   (license "Zope Public License 2.1"
            "http://directory.fsf.org/wiki?title=License:ZopePLv2.1"
-- 
2.12.2

bug#26588: [PATCH 2/3] licenses: Add Arev.

[Clément Lassieur]

* guix/licenses.scm (arev): New variable.
---
 guix/licenses.scm | 7 ++++++-
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/guix/licenses.scm b/guix/licenses.scm
index 09a17b8c6..3bf275712 100644
--- a/guix/licenses.scm
+++ b/guix/licenses.scm
@@ -72,7 +72,7 @@
             tcl/tk
             unlicense
             vim
-            x11 x11-style bitstream-vera
+            x11 x11-style bitstream-vera arev
             zpl2.1
             zlib
             fsf-free
@@ -482,6 +482,11 @@ itself.\"
 The license is non-free because of the above clause, but a Guix package is a
 \"larger software package\"."))
 
+(define arev
+  (license "Arev"
+           "http://tavmjong.free.fr/FONTS/ArevCopyright.txt"
+           (license-comment bitstream-vera)))
+
 (define zpl2.1
   (license "Zope Public License 2.1"
            "http://directory.fsf.org/wiki?title=License:ZopePLv2.1"
-- 
2.12.2

bug#26588: [PATCH 3/3] gnu: font-bitstream-vera: Change license to Bitstream Vera.

[Clément Lassieur]

This license is not X11-style because of its clause that makes it non-free.

* gnu/packages/fonts.scm (font-bitstream-vera)[license]: Change to Bitstream
Vera.
---
 gnu/packages/fonts.scm | 4 +---
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/gnu/packages/fonts.scm b/gnu/packages/fonts.scm
index 6579a66e4..18ddcc6e3 100644
--- a/gnu/packages/fonts.scm
+++ b/gnu/packages/fonts.scm
@@ -238,9 +238,7 @@ provide serif, sans and monospaced variants.")
     (synopsis "Bitstream Vera sans-serif typeface")
     (description "Vera is a sans-serif typeface from Bitstream, Inc.  This
 package provides the TrueType (TTF) files.")
-    (license
-     (license:x11-style
-      "http://www.gnome.org/fonts/#Final_Bitstream_Vera_Fonts"))))
+    (license (license:bitstream-vera))))
 
 (define-public font-cantarell
   (package
-- 
2.12.2

bug#26588: [PATCH 3/3] gnu: font-bitstream-vera: Change license to Bitstream Vera.

[Clément Lassieur]

Clément Lassieur <clement@lassieur.org> writes:

> This license is not X11-style because of its clause that makes it non-free.
>
> * gnu/packages/fonts.scm (font-bitstream-vera)[license]: Change to Bitstream
> Vera.
> ---
>  gnu/packages/fonts.scm | 4 +---
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/gnu/packages/fonts.scm b/gnu/packages/fonts.scm
> index 6579a66e4..18ddcc6e3 100644
> --- a/gnu/packages/fonts.scm
> +++ b/gnu/packages/fonts.scm
> @@ -238,9 +238,7 @@ provide serif, sans and monospaced variants.")
>      (synopsis "Bitstream Vera sans-serif typeface")
>      (description "Vera is a sans-serif typeface from Bitstream, Inc.  This
>  package provides the TrueType (TTF) files.")
> -    (license
> -     (license:x11-style
> -      "http://www.gnome.org/fonts/#Final_Bitstream_Vera_Fonts"))))
> +    (license (license:bitstream-vera))))
                ^
Extra parenthesis, that I'll remove when I push (if I do).
>  
>  (define-public font-cantarell
>    (package

bug#26588: [PATCH 1/3] licenses: Add Bitstream Vera.

[Marius Bakke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 809 bytes --]


Hello! Thanks for bringing this up.

Clément Lassieur <clement@lassieur.org> writes:

> * guix/licenses.scm (bitstream-vera): New variable.

[...]
  
> +(define bitstream-vera
> +  (license "Bitstream Vera"
> +           "https://www.gnome.org/fonts/#Final_Bitstream_Vera_Fonts"
> +           "\"The Font Software may be sold as part of a larger software package
> +but no copy of one or more of the Font Software typefaces may be sold by
> +itself.\"
> +
> +The license is non-free because of the above clause, but a Guix package is a
> +\"larger software package\"."))

Instead of "officially recognizing" these licenses, which are unlikely
to be re-used and ostensibly non-free, perhaps we could have a
"fsdg-compatible" license procedure similar to "fsf-free". What do you
think?

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --]

bug#26588: [PATCH 1/3] licenses: Add Bitstream Vera.

[Clément Lassieur]

Marius Bakke <mbakke@fastmail.com> writes:

> Hello! Thanks for bringing this up.
>
> Clément Lassieur <clement@lassieur.org> writes:
>
>> * guix/licenses.scm (bitstream-vera): New variable.
>
> [...]
>   
>> +(define bitstream-vera
>> +  (license "Bitstream Vera"
>> +           "https://www.gnome.org/fonts/#Final_Bitstream_Vera_Fonts"
>> +           "\"The Font Software may be sold as part of a larger software package
>> +but no copy of one or more of the Font Software typefaces may be sold by
>> +itself.\"
>> +
>> +The license is non-free because of the above clause, but a Guix package is a
>> +\"larger software package\"."))
>
> Instead of "officially recognizing" these licenses, which are unlikely
> to be re-used and ostensibly non-free, perhaps we could have a
> "fsdg-compatible" license procedure similar to "fsf-free". What do you
> think?

Well, bitstream-vera is used twice (if we include 0ad).  But anyway
that's okay.  I should specify in the fsdg-compatible 'comment' argument
that it is non-free, right?  Or maybe all fsdg-compatible would be
non-free?

bug#26588: [PATCH 1/3] licenses: Add Bitstream Vera.

[Marius Bakke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1735 bytes --]

Clément Lassieur <clement@lassieur.org> writes:

> Marius Bakke <mbakke@fastmail.com> writes:
>
>> Hello! Thanks for bringing this up.
>>
>> Clément Lassieur <clement@lassieur.org> writes:
>>
>>> * guix/licenses.scm (bitstream-vera): New variable.
>>
>> [...]
>>   
>>> +(define bitstream-vera
>>> +  (license "Bitstream Vera"
>>> +           "https://www.gnome.org/fonts/#Final_Bitstream_Vera_Fonts"
>>> +           "\"The Font Software may be sold as part of a larger software package
>>> +but no copy of one or more of the Font Software typefaces may be sold by
>>> +itself.\"
>>> +
>>> +The license is non-free because of the above clause, but a Guix package is a
>>> +\"larger software package\"."))
>>
>> Instead of "officially recognizing" these licenses, which are unlikely
>> to be re-used and ostensibly non-free, perhaps we could have a
>> "fsdg-compatible" license procedure similar to "fsf-free". What do you
>> think?
>
> Well, bitstream-vera is used twice (if we include 0ad).  But anyway
> that's okay.  I should specify in the fsdg-compatible 'comment' argument
> that it is non-free, right?  Or maybe all fsdg-compatible would be
> non-free?

0ad could include (package-license font-bitstream-vera) instead. I also
came across this font in "Hedgewars", so it's fairly prevalent.

The default comment of the "fsdg-compatible" (or fsdg-free as Debian
describes it[0]) license procedure should say something about not
necessarily being free, but passing FSDG criteria; but it's good to have
more specific comments in the actual packages.

Anyway, just an opinion, but I think such a procedure would be nice to
have :)

[0] https://packages.debian.org/sid/ttf-bitstream-vera

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --]

bug#26588: [PATCH 1/3] licenses: Add Bitstream Vera.

[Clément Lassieur]

Marius Bakke <mbakke@fastmail.com> writes:

> Clément Lassieur <clement@lassieur.org> writes:
>
>> Marius Bakke <mbakke@fastmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Hello! Thanks for bringing this up.
>>>
>>> Clément Lassieur <clement@lassieur.org> writes:
>>>
>>>> * guix/licenses.scm (bitstream-vera): New variable.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>   
>>>> +(define bitstream-vera
>>>> +  (license "Bitstream Vera"
>>>> +           "https://www.gnome.org/fonts/#Final_Bitstream_Vera_Fonts"
>>>> +           "\"The Font Software may be sold as part of a larger software package
>>>> +but no copy of one or more of the Font Software typefaces may be sold by
>>>> +itself.\"
>>>> +
>>>> +The license is non-free because of the above clause, but a Guix package is a
>>>> +\"larger software package\"."))
>>>
>>> Instead of "officially recognizing" these licenses, which are unlikely
>>> to be re-used and ostensibly non-free, perhaps we could have a
>>> "fsdg-compatible" license procedure similar to "fsf-free". What do you
>>> think?
>>
>> Well, bitstream-vera is used twice (if we include 0ad).  But anyway
>> that's okay.  I should specify in the fsdg-compatible 'comment' argument
>> that it is non-free, right?  Or maybe all fsdg-compatible would be
>> non-free?
>
> 0ad could include (package-license font-bitstream-vera) instead. I also
> came across this font in "Hedgewars", so it's fairly prevalent.
>
> The default comment of the "fsdg-compatible" (or fsdg-free as Debian
> describes it[0]) license procedure should say something about not
> necessarily being free, but passing FSDG criteria; but it's good to have
> more specific comments in the actual packages.
>
> Anyway, just an opinion, but I think such a procedure would be nice to
> have :)
>
> [0] https://packages.debian.org/sid/ttf-bitstream-vera

Ok!  Here are two patches: one adds fsdg-compatible, and the other
updates the font package.  I'll also send the 0ad update to the 0ad
debbugs thread.

bug#26588: [PATCH 1/2] licenses: Add new meta-license fsdg-compatible.

[Clément Lassieur]

* guix/licenses.scm (fsdg-compatible): New record with constructor.
---
 guix/licenses.scm | 13 ++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/guix/licenses.scm b/guix/licenses.scm
index 7b2ac2d31..830d4e1ec 100644
--- a/guix/licenses.scm
+++ b/guix/licenses.scm
@@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
 ;;; Copyright © 2016 Fabian Harfert <fhmgufs@web.de>
 ;;; Copyright © 2016 Rene Saavedra <rennes@openmailbox.org>
 ;;; Copyright © 2016, 2017 ng0 <ng0@libertad.pw>
+;;; Copyright © 2017 Clément Lassieur <clement@lassieur.org>
 ;;;
 ;;; This file is part of GNU Guix.
 ;;;
@@ -75,7 +76,8 @@
             zpl2.1
             zlib
             fsf-free
-            wtfpl2))
+            wtfpl2
+            fsdg-compatible))
 
 (define-record-type <license>
   (license name uri comment)
@@ -488,4 +490,13 @@ of licenses, approved as free by the FSF.  More details can be found at URI."
            uri
            comment))
 
+(define* (fsdg-compatible uri #:optional (comment ""))
+  "Return a license that does not fit any of the ones above or a collection
+of licenses, not necessarily free, but in accordance with FSDG as Non-functional
+Data.  More details can be found at URI.  See also
+https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.en.html#non-functional-data"
+  (license "FSDG-compatible"
+           uri
+           comment))
+
 ;;; licenses.scm ends here
-- 
2.12.2

bug#26588: [PATCH 2/2] gnu: font-bitstream-vera: Change license to fsdg-compatible.

[Clément Lassieur]

This license is not X11-style because of its clause that makes it non-free.

* gnu/packages/fonts.scm (font-bitstream-vera)[license]: Change to
fsdg-compatible Bitstream Vera.
---
 gnu/packages/fonts.scm | 8 ++++++--
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/gnu/packages/fonts.scm b/gnu/packages/fonts.scm
index 2452a1c81..1873c7659 100644
--- a/gnu/packages/fonts.scm
+++ b/gnu/packages/fonts.scm
@@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
 ;;; Copyright © 2017 Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me@tobias.gr>
 ;;; Copyright © 2017 José Miguel Sánchez García <jmi2k@openmailbox.com>
 ;;; Copyright © 2017 Alex Griffin <a@ajgrf.com>
+;;; Copyright © 2017 Clément Lassieur <clement@lassieur.org>
 ;;;
 ;;; This file is part of GNU Guix.
 ;;;
@@ -239,8 +240,11 @@ provide serif, sans and monospaced variants.")
     (description "Vera is a sans-serif typeface from Bitstream, Inc.  This
 package provides the TrueType (TTF) files.")
     (license
-     (license:x11-style
-      "http://www.gnome.org/fonts/#Final_Bitstream_Vera_Fonts"))))
+     (license:fsdg-compatible
+      "https://www.gnome.org/fonts/#Final_Bitstream_Vera_Fonts"
+      "The Font Software may be sold as part of a larger software package but
+no copy of one or more of the Font Software typefaces may be sold by
+itself."))))
 
 (define-public font-cantarell
   (package
-- 
2.12.2

bug#26588: [PATCH 1/3] licenses: Add Bitstream Vera.

[Marius Bakke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2128 bytes --]

Clément Lassieur <clement@lassieur.org> writes:

> Marius Bakke <mbakke@fastmail.com> writes:
>
>> Clément Lassieur <clement@lassieur.org> writes:
>>
>>> Marius Bakke <mbakke@fastmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Hello! Thanks for bringing this up.
>>>>
>>>> Clément Lassieur <clement@lassieur.org> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> * guix/licenses.scm (bitstream-vera): New variable.
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>   
>>>>> +(define bitstream-vera
>>>>> +  (license "Bitstream Vera"
>>>>> +           "https://www.gnome.org/fonts/#Final_Bitstream_Vera_Fonts"
>>>>> +           "\"The Font Software may be sold as part of a larger software package
>>>>> +but no copy of one or more of the Font Software typefaces may be sold by
>>>>> +itself.\"
>>>>> +
>>>>> +The license is non-free because of the above clause, but a Guix package is a
>>>>> +\"larger software package\"."))
>>>>
>>>> Instead of "officially recognizing" these licenses, which are unlikely
>>>> to be re-used and ostensibly non-free, perhaps we could have a
>>>> "fsdg-compatible" license procedure similar to "fsf-free". What do you
>>>> think?
>>>
>>> Well, bitstream-vera is used twice (if we include 0ad).  But anyway
>>> that's okay.  I should specify in the fsdg-compatible 'comment' argument
>>> that it is non-free, right?  Or maybe all fsdg-compatible would be
>>> non-free?
>>
>> 0ad could include (package-license font-bitstream-vera) instead. I also
>> came across this font in "Hedgewars", so it's fairly prevalent.
>>
>> The default comment of the "fsdg-compatible" (or fsdg-free as Debian
>> describes it[0]) license procedure should say something about not
>> necessarily being free, but passing FSDG criteria; but it's good to have
>> more specific comments in the actual packages.
>>
>> Anyway, just an opinion, but I think such a procedure would be nice to
>> have :)
>>
>> [0] https://packages.debian.org/sid/ttf-bitstream-vera
>
> Ok!  Here are two patches: one adds fsdg-compatible, and the other
> updates the font package.  I'll also send the 0ad update to the 0ad
> debbugs thread.

Thanks! These patches LGTM.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --]

bug#26588: [PATCH 1/3] licenses: Add Bitstream Vera.

[Clément Lassieur]

>> Ok!  Here are two patches: one adds fsdg-compatible, and the other
>> updates the font package.  I'll also send the 0ad update to the 0ad
>> debbugs thread.
>
> Thanks! These patches LGTM.

I pushed them.  Thank you for the review :-)