From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Kost Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add ttf-symbola. Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 10:11:53 +0400 Message-ID: <87wq7qatee.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87iojcdp53.fsf@gmail.com> <20141023062654.GB6636@debian> <8761farhzp.fsf@gmail.com> <20141023173605.466.47994@rook> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44596) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XhY6R-0002Jm-EM for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 02:12:04 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XhY6M-0000Vt-Ac for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 02:11:59 -0400 Received: from mail-lb0-x22b.google.com ([2a00:1450:4010:c04::22b]:65182) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XhY6M-0000Vl-21 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 02:11:54 -0400 Received: by mail-lb0-f171.google.com with SMTP id z12so2240447lbi.2 for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 23:11:52 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20141023173605.466.47994@rook> (Ian Denhardt's message of "Thu, 23 Oct 2014 13:36:05 -0400") 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: Ian Denhardt Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Ian Denhardt (2014-10-23 21:36 +0400) wrote: > 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 a= ny use; >> >> they may be opened, edited, modified, regenerated, posted, packaged a= nd >> >> 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. According to such questions may be asked at . But I'm afraid I'm not able to ask about it properly.