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