Le Lun 26 novembre 2007 15:51, Tom \"spot\" Callaway a écrit :
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=317641
> 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
Wasn't the case when I wrote this :p
Many thanks,
--
Nicolas Mailhot