From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42692)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1d4P8f-0002Ln-D5
	for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 05:58:06 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1d4P8c-0003Zs-30
	for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 05:58:05 -0400
Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:47335)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16)
	(Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1d4P8b-0003Zb-VY
	for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 05:58:02 -0400
Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1d4P8b-0001zC-LU
	for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 29 Apr 2017 05:58:01 -0400
Subject: bug#26588: [PATCH 1/3] licenses: Add Bitstream Vera.
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.26588.B26588.14934598247567@debbugs.gnu.org>
References: <87a879zum4.fsf@lassieur.org>
	<20170421144804.10169-1-clement@lassieur.org>
	<87zif3cz0s.fsf@fastmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Lassieur <clement@lassieur.org>
In-reply-to: <87zif3cz0s.fsf@fastmail.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 11:57:00 +0200
Message-ID: <87y3ujleoj.fsf@lassieur.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
List-Id: <guix-patches.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-patches>,
	<mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-patches@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-patches>,
	<mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-patches" <guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org>
To: Marius Bakke <mbakke@fastmail.com>
Cc: 26588@debbugs.gnu.org

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?