From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Denhardt Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add ttf-symbola. Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 13:36:05 -0400 Message-ID: <20141023173605.466.47994@rook> References: <87iojcdp53.fsf@gmail.com> <20141023062654.GB6636@debian> <8761farhzp.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"; boundary="===============8677171151476382601==" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40566) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XhMIO-0003ob-Nd for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 13:35:38 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XhMII-0003V8-Fm for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 13:35:32 -0400 Received: from zenhack.net ([198.7.57.215]:36430) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XhMII-0003Rc-BX for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 13:35:26 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8761farhzp.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-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Eric Bavier , Andreas Enge Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, Alex Kost --===============8677171151476382601== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Quoting Eric Bavier (2014-10-23 10:14:02) > = > Andreas Enge writes: > = > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 08:51:04PM +0400, Alex Kost wrote: > >> =C2=ABIn lieu of a licence: Fonts in this site are offered free for an= y use; > >> they may be opened, edited, modified, regenerated, posted, packaged and > >> redistributed.=C2=BB > >> Is it OK to use "fsf-free" for this package? > > > > To me, this sounds like "public-domain". > = > I was thinking the same. To me this sounds like "author does not understand licensing/copyright." It's pretty obvious the intent is some kind of simple permissive thing (whether that's a license or public domain), but it's not clear to me how much legal ambiguity there is. IANAL, but for certain entities, the ambiguity can be a problem (suppose, for example, you're a designer wanting to use this font for something, but you work somewhere with a strict legal department that doesn't think this qualifies as a license - you may be out of luck). You run into issues around certain packages, like sqlite-docs, where they end up being technically non-free because the developers decide "copyright is silly, I'm not going to deal with this." I sympathize, but... We ought to be careful about this one - maybe ask someone at the FSF about whether this meets their standards, and if not maybe ask the developer if they can put something less ambiguous on it. --===============8677171151476382601== MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: signature Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"; charset="us-ascii" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAABAgAGBQJUSTyFAAoJEPZUuMfUyjy4r6UP/28JVX8X8UE4UNL/p0f+GLgm WYTJQtKev0C0Go6DTxheeFww+kHPl+/eaUzxpCzi/NzE0h3aGbzGYbsihLMsVOV7 icMOxef+Dz1UhJf3RU/hDi4Ar4MohVzOZu7s5I2hjrFFVgMTdwwD0ORTUQmLjn0s kc6qgSI4AfR9b2+2SyaFMopO/S6m7EAHurmCOMadDUMlNR62/+veJ6HvsN4qK/vu laIPqBqUArkldzgRTX+Zh/27eB7txUpKg0P3RoWMdWdm92IaCOxQXho2PYZOmszY NZlfjn7AnsPTBdcFdk2Uj+y51RvcxNcMUglJE347x9AodxPEq9ocQXvke9OZUrmn n7mGadN9Jh5nttXvpui+3fA+lSEaxuLy85SSZvo+wARLovSHu4KvFtfqCtakuGwR tsnIG1QLIC6VpuR6GoUsiiy7fy0fSrX0MoQSyjoAVZTcRgqgopU9NqoPiHMsUp0n Rwhd4ThrgL6qqyME46e/jQmz3fyvu72m6WzxiFgKiyaH8Vlea4E+SzThvKtBXm1a NVXQwUFM89h026JkvQU9Yl/E0avuj8PdJbvTSM7u74ERMM/YqjXgkY34lnXOVpUf H5xZE7+YxQVbBm2LMq6BI9E1L67yscEQSx0pj+57MlGQ5OSCinJCBDCZRtoba2dj GrBFqFujcMhe24Rjm0LU =recB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --===============8677171151476382601==--