free software guidelines

[Roozbeh Pournader]

I'm wondering if there are any free software guidelines for Fedora. Most
specifically, I'm wondering if Luxi fonts will continue to be
distributed with Fedora.

Anybody knows details?

roozbeh

[Havoc Pennington]

On Thu, 2003-09-25 at 16:18, Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
> I'm wondering if there are any free software guidelines for Fedora. Most
> specifically, I'm wondering if Luxi fonts will continue to be
> distributed with Fedora.
>
> Anybody knows details?

There aren't detailed guidelines yet. My view is that we can be a bit
more liberal about font licenses than software licenses. I would like to
see us be both FSF and opensource.org approved for the software in the
distribution, though. Only thing I know of that isn't OK right now is
pine.

Havoc

[Bill Nottingham]

Havoc Pennington ([e-mail]) said:
> On Thu, 2003-09-25 at 16:18, Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
> > I'm wondering if there are any free software guidelines for Fedora. Most
> > specifically, I'm wondering if Luxi fonts will continue to be
> > distributed with Fedora.
> >
> > Anybody knows details?
>
> There aren't detailed guidelines yet. My view is that we can be a bit
> more liberal about font licenses than software licenses. I would like to
> see us be both FSF and opensource.org approved for the software in the
> distribution, though. Only thing I know of that isn't OK right now is
> pine.

pine isn't included.

Bill

[Rodrigo Del C. Andrade]

Wtf?!
    Why?!?!

Er.. sorry, it was the shock. But now, serioulsy: why?! Pine is great!

Vantroy

Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Havoc Pennington ([e-mail]) said:
> > On Thu, 2003-09-25 at 16:18, Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
> > > I'm wondering if there are any free software guidelines for Fedora. Most
> > > specifically, I'm wondering if Luxi fonts will continue to be
> > > distributed with Fedora.
> > >
> > > Anybody knows details?
> >
> > There aren't detailed guidelines yet. My view is that we can be a bit
> > more liberal about font licenses than software licenses. I would like to
> > see us be both FSF and opensource.org approved for the software in the
> > distribution, though. Only thing I know of that isn't OK right now is
> > pine.
>
> pine isn't included.
>
> Bill
>
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

[Bill Nottingham]

Rodrigo Del C. Andrade ([e-mail]) said:
> Wtf?!
>    Why?!?!

The license.

Bill

[Rodrigo Del C. Andrade]

Oh. I see.
    Thanks.

Van

Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Rodrigo Del C. Andrade ([e-mail]) said:
> > Wtf?!
> >    Why?!?!
>
> The license.
>
> Bill
>
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Sep 26, 2003, "Rodrigo Del C. Andrade"  wrote:
> Er.. sorry, it was the shock. But now, serioulsy: why?! Pine is great!

It's not free software.  Read the license.

[Roozbeh Pournader]

On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 02:08, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> My view is that we can be a bit more liberal about font licenses than
> software licenses.

Well, it's a real pain not to be able to add a certain missing character
to a font, because the license doesn't allow. Getting used to a font and
then needing to switch it since a certain Euro Sign is invented and you
are not allowed to change the font, is almost as bad as being addicted
to pine. Less is sometimes more, in that regard.

Why software should be free? Because it's a pain in the ass for the
hackers if it's not so. Why fonts should be free? Because of the same
reason, but with s/hackers/font hackers/ this time.

The same issue is there about graphics (say, background images).

roozbeh