GNU bug report logs - #26588
Add some (non-free?) font licenses.

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 26588 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 26588 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Clément Lassieur <clement <at> lassieur.org>
To: guix-patches <at> gnu.org
Subject: Add some (non-free?) font licenses.
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 16:46:27 +0200

The first patch adds Bitstream Vera license, which IMHO is non-free.
Feel free to discuss it though, I'm not sure of the comment I wrote.

The font could be added even though it is non-free because it could be
considered a "Non-fonctional data".  See
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html#non-functional-data.

The second patch adds Arev license, which is almost like Bitsteam Vera,
and is needed by 0ad-data (which I'm working on).

The third patch fixes font-bitstream-vera, which IMHO erroneously had
X11-style license.

Message #8 received at 26588 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Clément Lassieur <clement <at> lassieur.org>
To: 26588 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] licenses: Add Bitstream Vera.
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 16:48:02 +0200

* guix/licenses.scm (bitstream-vera): New variable.
---
 guix/licenses.scm | 13 ++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/guix/licenses.scm b/guix/licenses.scm
index 7b2ac2d31..09a17b8c6 100644
--- a/guix/licenses.scm
+++ b/guix/licenses.scm
@@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
 ;;; Copyright © 2016 Fabian Harfert <fhmgufs <at> web.de>
 ;;; Copyright © 2016 Rene Saavedra <rennes <at> openmailbox.org>
 ;;; Copyright © 2016, 2017 ng0 <ng0 <at> libertad.pw>
+;;; Copyright © 2017 Clément Lassieur <clement <at> lassieur.org>
 ;;;
 ;;; This file is part of GNU Guix.
 ;;;
@@ -71,7 +72,7 @@
             tcl/tk
             unlicense
             vim
-            x11 x11-style
+            x11 x11-style bitstream-vera
             zpl2.1
             zlib
             fsf-free
@@ -471,6 +472,16 @@ which may be a file:// URI pointing the package's tree."
             "Check the URI for details.  "
             comment)))
 
+(define bitstream-vera
+  (license "Bitstream Vera"
+           "https://www.gnome.org/fonts/#Final_Bitstream_Vera_Fonts"
+           "\"The Font Software may be sold as part of a larger software package
+but no copy of one or more of the Font Software typefaces may be sold by
+itself.\"
+
+The license is non-free because of the above clause, but a Guix package is a
+\"larger software package\"."))
+
 (define zpl2.1
   (license "Zope Public License 2.1"
            "http://directory.fsf.org/wiki?title=License:ZopePLv2.1"
-- 
2.12.2

Message #11 received at 26588 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Clément Lassieur <clement <at> lassieur.org>
To: 26588 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: [PATCH 2/3] licenses: Add Arev.
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 16:48:03 +0200

* guix/licenses.scm (arev): New variable.
---
 guix/licenses.scm | 7 ++++++-
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/guix/licenses.scm b/guix/licenses.scm
index 09a17b8c6..3bf275712 100644
--- a/guix/licenses.scm
+++ b/guix/licenses.scm
@@ -72,7 +72,7 @@
             tcl/tk
             unlicense
             vim
-            x11 x11-style bitstream-vera
+            x11 x11-style bitstream-vera arev
             zpl2.1
             zlib
             fsf-free
@@ -482,6 +482,11 @@ itself.\"
 The license is non-free because of the above clause, but a Guix package is a
 \"larger software package\"."))
 
+(define arev
+  (license "Arev"
+           "http://tavmjong.free.fr/FONTS/ArevCopyright.txt"
+           (license-comment bitstream-vera)))
+
 (define zpl2.1
   (license "Zope Public License 2.1"
            "http://directory.fsf.org/wiki?title=License:ZopePLv2.1"
-- 
2.12.2

Message #14 received at 26588 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Clément Lassieur <clement <at> lassieur.org>
To: 26588 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: [PATCH 3/3] gnu: font-bitstream-vera: Change license to Bitstream
 Vera.
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 16:48:04 +0200

This license is not X11-style because of its clause that makes it non-free.

* gnu/packages/fonts.scm (font-bitstream-vera)[license]: Change to Bitstream
Vera.
---
 gnu/packages/fonts.scm | 4 +---
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/gnu/packages/fonts.scm b/gnu/packages/fonts.scm
index 6579a66e4..18ddcc6e3 100644
--- a/gnu/packages/fonts.scm
+++ b/gnu/packages/fonts.scm
@@ -238,9 +238,7 @@ provide serif, sans and monospaced variants.")
     (synopsis "Bitstream Vera sans-serif typeface")
     (description "Vera is a sans-serif typeface from Bitstream, Inc.  This
 package provides the TrueType (TTF) files.")
-    (license
-     (license:x11-style
-      "http://www.gnome.org/fonts/#Final_Bitstream_Vera_Fonts"))))
+    (license (license:bitstream-vera))))
 
 (define-public font-cantarell
   (package
-- 
2.12.2

Message #17 received at 26588 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Clément Lassieur <clement <at> lassieur.org>
To: 26588 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#26588: [PATCH 3/3] gnu: font-bitstream-vera: Change license
 to Bitstream Vera.
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 17:30:15 +0200

Clément Lassieur <clement <at> lassieur.org> writes:

> This license is not X11-style because of its clause that makes it non-free.
>
> * gnu/packages/fonts.scm (font-bitstream-vera)[license]: Change to Bitstream
> Vera.
> ---
>  gnu/packages/fonts.scm | 4 +---
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/gnu/packages/fonts.scm b/gnu/packages/fonts.scm
> index 6579a66e4..18ddcc6e3 100644
> --- a/gnu/packages/fonts.scm
> +++ b/gnu/packages/fonts.scm
> @@ -238,9 +238,7 @@ provide serif, sans and monospaced variants.")
>      (synopsis "Bitstream Vera sans-serif typeface")
>      (description "Vera is a sans-serif typeface from Bitstream, Inc.  This
>  package provides the TrueType (TTF) files.")
> -    (license
> -     (license:x11-style
> -      "http://www.gnome.org/fonts/#Final_Bitstream_Vera_Fonts"))))
> +    (license (license:bitstream-vera))))
                ^
Extra parenthesis, that I'll remove when I push (if I do).
>  
>  (define-public font-cantarell
>    (package

Message #24 received at 26588 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Marius Bakke <mbakke <at> fastmail.com>
To: Clément Lassieur <clement <at> lassieur.org>,
 26588 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#26588: [PATCH 1/3] licenses: Add Bitstream Vera.
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 11:13:23 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hello! Thanks for bringing this up.

Clément Lassieur <clement <at> lassieur.org> writes:

> * guix/licenses.scm (bitstream-vera): New variable.

[...]
  
> +(define bitstream-vera
> +  (license "Bitstream Vera"
> +           "https://www.gnome.org/fonts/#Final_Bitstream_Vera_Fonts"
> +           "\"The Font Software may be sold as part of a larger software package
> +but no copy of one or more of the Font Software typefaces may be sold by
> +itself.\"
> +
> +The license is non-free because of the above clause, but a Guix package is a
> +\"larger software package\"."))

Instead of "officially recognizing" these licenses, which are unlikely
to be re-used and ostensibly non-free, perhaps we could have a
"fsdg-compatible" license procedure similar to "fsf-free". What do you
think?

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #27 received at 26588 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Clément Lassieur <clement <at> lassieur.org>
To: Marius Bakke <mbakke <at> fastmail.com>
Cc: 26588 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#26588: [PATCH 1/3] licenses: Add Bitstream Vera.
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 11:57:00 +0200

Marius Bakke <mbakke <at> fastmail.com> writes:

> Hello! Thanks for bringing this up.
>
> Clément Lassieur <clement <at> lassieur.org> writes:
>
>> * guix/licenses.scm (bitstream-vera): New variable.
>
> [...]
>   
>> +(define bitstream-vera
>> +  (license "Bitstream Vera"
>> +           "https://www.gnome.org/fonts/#Final_Bitstream_Vera_Fonts"
>> +           "\"The Font Software may be sold as part of a larger software package
>> +but no copy of one or more of the Font Software typefaces may be sold by
>> +itself.\"
>> +
>> +The license is non-free because of the above clause, but a Guix package is a
>> +\"larger software package\"."))
>
> Instead of "officially recognizing" these licenses, which are unlikely
> to be re-used and ostensibly non-free, perhaps we could have a
> "fsdg-compatible" license procedure similar to "fsf-free". What do you
> think?

Well, bitstream-vera is used twice (if we include 0ad).  But anyway
that's okay.  I should specify in the fsdg-compatible 'comment' argument
that it is non-free, right?  Or maybe all fsdg-compatible would be
non-free?

Message #30 received at 26588 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Marius Bakke <mbakke <at> fastmail.com>
To: Clément Lassieur <clement <at> lassieur.org>
Cc: 26588 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#26588: [PATCH 1/3] licenses: Add Bitstream Vera.
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 16:00:42 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Clément Lassieur <clement <at> lassieur.org> writes:

> Marius Bakke <mbakke <at> fastmail.com> writes:
>
>> Hello! Thanks for bringing this up.
>>
>> Clément Lassieur <clement <at> lassieur.org> writes:
>>
>>> * guix/licenses.scm (bitstream-vera): New variable.
>>
>> [...]
>>   
>>> +(define bitstream-vera
>>> +  (license "Bitstream Vera"
>>> +           "https://www.gnome.org/fonts/#Final_Bitstream_Vera_Fonts"
>>> +           "\"The Font Software may be sold as part of a larger software package
>>> +but no copy of one or more of the Font Software typefaces may be sold by
>>> +itself.\"
>>> +
>>> +The license is non-free because of the above clause, but a Guix package is a
>>> +\"larger software package\"."))
>>
>> Instead of "officially recognizing" these licenses, which are unlikely
>> to be re-used and ostensibly non-free, perhaps we could have a
>> "fsdg-compatible" license procedure similar to "fsf-free". What do you
>> think?
>
> Well, bitstream-vera is used twice (if we include 0ad).  But anyway
> that's okay.  I should specify in the fsdg-compatible 'comment' argument
> that it is non-free, right?  Or maybe all fsdg-compatible would be
> non-free?

0ad could include (package-license font-bitstream-vera) instead. I also
came across this font in "Hedgewars", so it's fairly prevalent.

The default comment of the "fsdg-compatible" (or fsdg-free as Debian
describes it[0]) license procedure should say something about not
necessarily being free, but passing FSDG criteria; but it's good to have
more specific comments in the actual packages.

Anyway, just an opinion, but I think such a procedure would be nice to
have :)

[0] https://packages.debian.org/sid/ttf-bitstream-vera

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #33 received at 26588 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Clément Lassieur <clement <at> lassieur.org>
To: Marius Bakke <mbakke <at> fastmail.com>
Cc: 26588 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#26588: [PATCH 1/3] licenses: Add Bitstream Vera.
Date: Mon, 01 May 2017 13:00:47 +0200

Marius Bakke <mbakke <at> fastmail.com> writes:

> Clément Lassieur <clement <at> lassieur.org> writes:
>
>> Marius Bakke <mbakke <at> fastmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Hello! Thanks for bringing this up.
>>>
>>> Clément Lassieur <clement <at> lassieur.org> writes:
>>>
>>>> * guix/licenses.scm (bitstream-vera): New variable.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>   
>>>> +(define bitstream-vera
>>>> +  (license "Bitstream Vera"
>>>> +           "https://www.gnome.org/fonts/#Final_Bitstream_Vera_Fonts"
>>>> +           "\"The Font Software may be sold as part of a larger software package
>>>> +but no copy of one or more of the Font Software typefaces may be sold by
>>>> +itself.\"
>>>> +
>>>> +The license is non-free because of the above clause, but a Guix package is a
>>>> +\"larger software package\"."))
>>>
>>> Instead of "officially recognizing" these licenses, which are unlikely
>>> to be re-used and ostensibly non-free, perhaps we could have a
>>> "fsdg-compatible" license procedure similar to "fsf-free". What do you
>>> think?
>>
>> Well, bitstream-vera is used twice (if we include 0ad).  But anyway
>> that's okay.  I should specify in the fsdg-compatible 'comment' argument
>> that it is non-free, right?  Or maybe all fsdg-compatible would be
>> non-free?
>
> 0ad could include (package-license font-bitstream-vera) instead. I also
> came across this font in "Hedgewars", so it's fairly prevalent.
>
> The default comment of the "fsdg-compatible" (or fsdg-free as Debian
> describes it[0]) license procedure should say something about not
> necessarily being free, but passing FSDG criteria; but it's good to have
> more specific comments in the actual packages.
>
> Anyway, just an opinion, but I think such a procedure would be nice to
> have :)
>
> [0] https://packages.debian.org/sid/ttf-bitstream-vera

Ok!  Here are two patches: one adds fsdg-compatible, and the other
updates the font package.  I'll also send the 0ad update to the 0ad
debbugs thread.

Message #36 received at 26588 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Clément Lassieur <clement <at> lassieur.org>
To: 26588 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] licenses: Add new meta-license fsdg-compatible.
Date: Mon,  1 May 2017 13:01:25 +0200

* guix/licenses.scm (fsdg-compatible): New record with constructor.
---
 guix/licenses.scm | 13 ++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/guix/licenses.scm b/guix/licenses.scm
index 7b2ac2d31..830d4e1ec 100644
--- a/guix/licenses.scm
+++ b/guix/licenses.scm
@@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
 ;;; Copyright © 2016 Fabian Harfert <fhmgufs <at> web.de>
 ;;; Copyright © 2016 Rene Saavedra <rennes <at> openmailbox.org>
 ;;; Copyright © 2016, 2017 ng0 <ng0 <at> libertad.pw>
+;;; Copyright © 2017 Clément Lassieur <clement <at> lassieur.org>
 ;;;
 ;;; This file is part of GNU Guix.
 ;;;
@@ -75,7 +76,8 @@
             zpl2.1
             zlib
             fsf-free
-            wtfpl2))
+            wtfpl2
+            fsdg-compatible))
 
 (define-record-type <license>
   (license name uri comment)
@@ -488,4 +490,13 @@ of licenses, approved as free by the FSF.  More details can be found at URI."
            uri
            comment))
 
+(define* (fsdg-compatible uri #:optional (comment ""))
+  "Return a license that does not fit any of the ones above or a collection
+of licenses, not necessarily free, but in accordance with FSDG as Non-functional
+Data.  More details can be found at URI.  See also
+https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.en.html#non-functional-data"
+  (license "FSDG-compatible"
+           uri
+           comment))
+
 ;;; licenses.scm ends here
-- 
2.12.2

Message #39 received at 26588 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Clément Lassieur <clement <at> lassieur.org>
To: 26588 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] gnu: font-bitstream-vera: Change license to
 fsdg-compatible.
Date: Mon,  1 May 2017 13:01:26 +0200

This license is not X11-style because of its clause that makes it non-free.

* gnu/packages/fonts.scm (font-bitstream-vera)[license]: Change to
fsdg-compatible Bitstream Vera.
---
 gnu/packages/fonts.scm | 8 ++++++--
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/gnu/packages/fonts.scm b/gnu/packages/fonts.scm
index 2452a1c81..1873c7659 100644
--- a/gnu/packages/fonts.scm
+++ b/gnu/packages/fonts.scm
@@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
 ;;; Copyright © 2017 Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me <at> tobias.gr>
 ;;; Copyright © 2017 José Miguel Sánchez García <jmi2k <at> openmailbox.com>
 ;;; Copyright © 2017 Alex Griffin <a <at> ajgrf.com>
+;;; Copyright © 2017 Clément Lassieur <clement <at> lassieur.org>
 ;;;
 ;;; This file is part of GNU Guix.
 ;;;
@@ -239,8 +240,11 @@ provide serif, sans and monospaced variants.")
     (description "Vera is a sans-serif typeface from Bitstream, Inc.  This
 package provides the TrueType (TTF) files.")
     (license
-     (license:x11-style
-      "http://www.gnome.org/fonts/#Final_Bitstream_Vera_Fonts"))))
+     (license:fsdg-compatible
+      "https://www.gnome.org/fonts/#Final_Bitstream_Vera_Fonts"
+      "The Font Software may be sold as part of a larger software package but
+no copy of one or more of the Font Software typefaces may be sold by
+itself."))))
 
 (define-public font-cantarell
   (package
-- 
2.12.2

Message #42 received at 26588 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Marius Bakke <mbakke <at> fastmail.com>
To: Clément Lassieur <clement <at> lassieur.org>
Cc: 26588 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#26588: [PATCH 1/3] licenses: Add Bitstream Vera.
Date: Mon, 01 May 2017 16:53:20 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Clément Lassieur <clement <at> lassieur.org> writes:

> Marius Bakke <mbakke <at> fastmail.com> writes:
>
>> Clément Lassieur <clement <at> lassieur.org> writes:
>>
>>> Marius Bakke <mbakke <at> fastmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Hello! Thanks for bringing this up.
>>>>
>>>> Clément Lassieur <clement <at> lassieur.org> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> * guix/licenses.scm (bitstream-vera): New variable.
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>   
>>>>> +(define bitstream-vera
>>>>> +  (license "Bitstream Vera"
>>>>> +           "https://www.gnome.org/fonts/#Final_Bitstream_Vera_Fonts"
>>>>> +           "\"The Font Software may be sold as part of a larger software package
>>>>> +but no copy of one or more of the Font Software typefaces may be sold by
>>>>> +itself.\"
>>>>> +
>>>>> +The license is non-free because of the above clause, but a Guix package is a
>>>>> +\"larger software package\"."))
>>>>
>>>> Instead of "officially recognizing" these licenses, which are unlikely
>>>> to be re-used and ostensibly non-free, perhaps we could have a
>>>> "fsdg-compatible" license procedure similar to "fsf-free". What do you
>>>> think?
>>>
>>> Well, bitstream-vera is used twice (if we include 0ad).  But anyway
>>> that's okay.  I should specify in the fsdg-compatible 'comment' argument
>>> that it is non-free, right?  Or maybe all fsdg-compatible would be
>>> non-free?
>>
>> 0ad could include (package-license font-bitstream-vera) instead. I also
>> came across this font in "Hedgewars", so it's fairly prevalent.
>>
>> The default comment of the "fsdg-compatible" (or fsdg-free as Debian
>> describes it[0]) license procedure should say something about not
>> necessarily being free, but passing FSDG criteria; but it's good to have
>> more specific comments in the actual packages.
>>
>> Anyway, just an opinion, but I think such a procedure would be nice to
>> have :)
>>
>> [0] https://packages.debian.org/sid/ttf-bitstream-vera
>
> Ok!  Here are two patches: one adds fsdg-compatible, and the other
> updates the font package.  I'll also send the 0ad update to the 0ad
> debbugs thread.

Thanks! These patches LGTM.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #47 received at 26588-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Clément Lassieur <clement <at> lassieur.org>
To: Marius Bakke <mbakke <at> fastmail.com>
Cc: 26588-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#26588: [PATCH 1/3] licenses: Add Bitstream Vera.
Date: Mon, 01 May 2017 21:37:27 +0200

>> Ok!  Here are two patches: one adds fsdg-compatible, and the other
>> updates the font package.  I'll also send the 0ad update to the 0ad
>> debbugs thread.
>
> Thanks! These patches LGTM.

I pushed them.  Thank you for the review :-)

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.