Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add cool-retro-term.

[Petter]

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 13:59:29 -0700
Chris Marusich <address@hidden> wrote:

> Petter <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > What do we do about the fonts without licensing info?  
> 
> Unfortunately, "no license" is not a free license:

Yeah, I kinda figured that one just after I sent the e-mail :)

> 
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#NoLicense
> 
> "If source code does not carry a license to give users the four
> essential freedoms, then unless it has been explicitly and validly
> placed in the public domain, it is not free software."
> 
> The FSDG states:
> 
> https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html
> 
> "License Rules
> 
> 'Information for practical use' includes software, documentation,
> fonts, and other data that has direct functional applications. It does
> not include artistic works that have an aesthetic (rather than
> functional) purpose, or statements of opinion or judgment.
> 
> All information for practical use in a free distribution must be
> available in source form. ('Source' means the form of the information
> that is preferred for making changes to it.)
> 
> The information, and the source, must be provided under an appropriate
> free license. We evaluate specific licenses and list our determinations
> in our license list, with separate sections for licenses that are
> suitable for software, documentation, fonts, and other useful works. If
> such a work is released under a disjunction of licenses, the work is
> free as long as at least one of its licenses is free; the system
> developers should follow the terms of the applicable free license(s)
> when they distribute and/or modify it."
> 
> The same page also has a section on fonts:
> 
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#Fonts
> 
> "The licenses below apply to an instantiation of a design in a computer
> file, not the artistic design. As far as we know, an implementation of a
> design is always copyrightable. The legal status of the artistic design
> is complex, and varies by jurisdiction."
> 
> To ensure that this contribution meets these guidelines and respects the
> freedom of the system's users, I think we cannot include a font for
> which we cannot find an associated license.  If we can find a license
> for the font and it is a free license, then we could include it.
> 

Thanks for this information! Licensing is a weak field for me.

I've made a mental change from blacklisting fonts to whitelisting.

pgpaWa3c0lQYY.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature