From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46922) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d4Svs-0002T0-HD for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 10:01:09 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d4Svn-0008DY-NX for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 10:01:08 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:48251) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d4Svn-0008DO-F3 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 10:01:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1d4Svn-00032P-4R for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 10:01:03 -0400 Subject: bug#26588: [PATCH 1/3] licenses: Add Bitstream Vera. Resent-Message-ID: From: Marius Bakke In-Reply-To: <87y3ujleoj.fsf@lassieur.org> References: <87a879zum4.fsf@lassieur.org> <20170421144804.10169-1-clement@lassieur.org> <87zif3cz0s.fsf@fastmail.com> <87y3ujleoj.fsf@lassieur.org> Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 16:00:42 +0200 Message-ID: <87bmrfb9f9.fsf@fastmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" 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: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Lassieur Cc: 26588@debbugs.gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cl=C3=A9ment Lassieur writes: > Marius Bakke writes: > >> Hello! Thanks for bringing this up. >> >> Cl=C3=A9ment Lassieur writes: >> >>> * guix/licenses.scm (bitstream-vera): New variable. >> >> [...] >>=20=20=20 >>> +(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 softwa= re 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 packag= e 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 --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEu7At3yzq9qgNHeZDoqBt8qM6VPoFAlkEnIoACgkQoqBt8qM6 VPq6tgf+K3dCgNl4l8D2joQ3tuz4MVeXdvRb3oC6tKRw2AfOgIVi/LZ66ypN60Ib Rjdh0g+uyIIovwWIZmDLse6mFocD2iaA5U8ROmYz47m161zCFFelELm7ABUpiEAX crO4XLX16mnuNgHrpFSN6SK6S0zd9ZHhz1uu8zzr5BL7iOlJfB95NXWWjjAv8BkE v/CKhSIJstWWyZD2btbX3SiKhOyjyy++LQBFrr4fNNi5IWMAlJ96ZyMP2AGZUnYd AcMpi1sDLy1S2yOo2h1xlY6qde4JlG0SvDIS65WQnU58RDsjUSKU4APbWNkBkRqO o5FWDdgJVa2qVrLegJyC+YPbdDmzvg== =8atm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--