Clément Lassieur writes: > 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. Thanks! These patches LGTM.