[Bug 477383] [extremetuxracer] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477383


Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|needinfo?(fedora-fonts-bugs |
                   |-list at redhat.com)           |




--- Comment #11 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net>  2009-02-20 12:24:32 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> After I got fontforge working (bug #466404 and bug #450709), I looked into the
> font metadata:
> 
> It says that the font family is "PaperCuts 2.0". Would the resultant, compliant
> package name be "extremetuxracer-papercuts2_0-fonts"?

A strict reading of guidelines would be extremetuxracer-papercuts-2-0-fonts but
unless there is a 1.0 somewhere I'd say just drop the whole 2.0 thing and use
 extremetuxracer-papercuts-fonts

> Two font files are included which have the same font in what I think is bold
> and outline weight. Still, the outline file says it is "bold" in its metadata.
> Should I fix this? Can you help me to do this properly?

Outline is not a "weight", and the fonts should belong to two different font
families. Modern fonts can only have faces/styles differing in weight
(bold/heavy), width (condensed/stretched), slant (italic/oblique), anything
else confuses applications.

Still, they both say they're the "PaperCuts 2.0" font family in "BoldOblique".
They should be font family A in Bold and font family B in bold (and drop the
silly version-in-name)

That should be easy enough to fix with fontforge but needs to be done upstream.

I advise packaging them as extremetuxracer-papercuts-fonts and
extremetuxracer-papercuts-outline-fonts with the files unchanged from upstream,
and having the fonts fixed upstream

> The license for both files is this:
> - "Names/Copyright": "Made for ETR by cpicon92. Based on Paper Cuts Daniel
> Poeira, licensed under the GPL. Czech alphabet and U+00A0, U+2009 and U+202f by
> Petr Pisar, 2007."
> - "TTF Names/License": "The use of this font is granted subject to GNU General
> Public License."
> - "TTF Names/Descriptor": "A combination of Free Sans Bold Oblique and Paper
> Cuts, made by cpicon92 for Extreme Tux Racer"
> I know that GPL isn't an ideal license for a font, but is that acceptable?

We accept fonts under the GPL even if their use in embedding context is subject
to debate. If you can reach the various authors and make them re-license under
the GPL+font exception (with a specified GPL version range) that would be
better of course. Current freefont is GPLv3 + font exception, but the version
they used may have had some other licensing

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.