[Fedora-packaging] Re: [Long] Do we need a font SIG ?
On Fri, 2007-09-14 at 13:51 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
7. The font situation is bad enough we have a font exception to our
FLOSS rules
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-daa717ea096fa4d9c...
[for example we ship Luxi even though its licensing forbids
modification, making it non-free
http://www.xfree86.org/current/LICENSE11.html]
Open a bug report. Let's start the process of having it removed in F9.
8. There are efforts to drain the font licensing swamp and promote
FLOSS fonts (http://unifont.org/go_for_ofl/), they are aligned with
Fedora general objectives yet Fedora has totally ignored them so far
(cf Liberation licensing choices)
Keep in mind that Liberation licensing was a Red Hat, Inc decision, not
a Fedora decision.
Also, we haven't totally ignored the OFL, since it is listed as the
"preferred" font license on the Fedora licensing page:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Fonts
~spot