From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33289) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d594k-0002ga-A1 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 01 May 2017 07:01:07 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d594g-0007vC-7O for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 01 May 2017 07:01:06 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:50347) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d594g-0007uz-3e for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 01 May 2017 07:01:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1d594f-0007Uk-QS for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 01 May 2017 07:01:01 -0400 Subject: bug#26588: [PATCH 1/3] licenses: Add Bitstream Vera. Resent-Message-ID: References: <87a879zum4.fsf@lassieur.org> <20170421144804.10169-1-clement@lassieur.org> <87zif3cz0s.fsf@fastmail.com> <87y3ujleoj.fsf@lassieur.org> <87bmrfb9f9.fsf@fastmail.com> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Lassieur In-reply-to: <87bmrfb9f9.fsf@fastmail.com> Date: Mon, 01 May 2017 13:00:47 +0200 Message-ID: <87a86wdeow.fsf@lassieur.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: Marius Bakke Cc: 26588@debbugs.gnu.org Marius Bakke writes: > Clément Lassieur writes: > >> Marius Bakke writes: >> >>> Hello! Thanks for bringing this up. >>> >>> Clément Lassieur 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.