From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34370) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d3J1S-0005qE-8Z for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 05:14:07 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d3J1P-00055l-26 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 05:14:06 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:42356) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d3J1O-00055T-NR for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 05:14:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1d3J1O-00049B-Cl for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 05:14:02 -0400 Subject: bug#26588: [PATCH 1/3] licenses: Add Bitstream Vera. Resent-Message-ID: From: Marius Bakke In-Reply-To: <20170421144804.10169-1-clement@lassieur.org> References: <87a879zum4.fsf@lassieur.org> <20170421144804.10169-1-clement@lassieur.org> Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 11:13:23 +0200 Message-ID: <87zif3cz0s.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 , 26588@debbugs.gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello! Thanks for bringing this up. Cl=C3=A9ment Lassieur writes: > * guix/licenses.scm (bitstream-vera): New variable. [...] =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 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? --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEu7At3yzq9qgNHeZDoqBt8qM6VPoFAlkAZLMACgkQoqBt8qM6 VPrjfggAm+WscEPnlK+tEKKdf3q6XH7q+9CO3UhvySuom5bNuELSvTCVnuKKx2Vm mI4ZY8F+fNyqqHJZxid1ScrzHwgUkTMxDGhpWLwPe5T9CM0gq49PYebQOyFCjxm5 iCZm/xR10sE9aJyHK4VtBQ6hvyS3qFwBforaWr2PZwq7XHkZPrA6warBoEJ0sMU2 Gx1lwjNXe33W299vMsSbuTeS/9WNeAMAEsnwfhAMJZVpvKCfsyce9xIqcPd8FW6N pCKhlfpsQLhm2kafGA91vkzZMMD3rn2Nxzfity5sLwoq5NUyZGfhPpv3xvkSKYu1 4grRlPUsFfk6jeFQGLN/RiC5xZxbhA== =tuxK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--