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-daa717ea096fa4d9cf7b9a49b5edb36e3bda3aac >> [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 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
