Re: Fonts for distribution

[Simos Xenitellis <simos74 gmx net>]

O/H Clytie Siddall ÎÎÏÎÏÎ:
> On 23/02/2006, at 1:21 AM, Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
>
> > ØÙØ ÚÙØØØÙØÙØ 2006-02-22 ØØØØ 16:54 +1030Ø Clytie Siddall ÙÙØØ:
> > > What do you guys think? If we could release Gentium and maybe Doulos
> > > with distros, our users have effective, true Unicode fonts which will
> > > display all localizations.
> >
> > Gentium, Doulos, and Charis are already available in Fedora, in packages
> > named "gentium-fonts", "doulos-fonts", and "charis-fonts". All three are
> > currently available for Fedora Core 5 test versions, while at the
> > present moment only gentium-fonts is available for Fedora Core 4 (Charis
> > and Doulos will be available in a few days).
> >
> > For example, to install the Gentium on Fedora, one can simply type:
> > # yum install gentium-fonts
>
> This is interesting to hear, Roozbeh, thankyou, because on the 
> debian-i18n list, where I also brought up this topic, I was told 
> somewhat forcibly that the OFL doesn't allow distribution. MJ Ray said:
>
> > Last I heard, the Open Font Licence got its name change clause
> > (clause 3) wrong and prevents people making API-compatible
> > new fonts based on OFL'd ones (that is, derived works cannot
> > be drop-in replacements for an original). It goes far further
> > in this restriction than the Bitstream Vera fonts, for example.
> > The Bitstream Vera README tells you how to include a local.conf
> > file to be a drop-in replacement, but that seems forbidden
> > for OFL'd packages.
> >
> > The OFL FAQ claims it follows the DFSG, but DDs disagree. See
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00454.html
> > for example. Please do not upload OFL'd fonts to main for now.
>
> Not that I was going to upload anything, but you get the gist.
Hi Clytie,
That is strange. Mr Ray said earlier,
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/11/msg00219.html

I have been following the progress of the OFL through "debian-legal",
the mailing list that is supposed to make sure whether a package goes to 
main or to non-free.
This list appears to be a bunch of individuals that make their own 
interpretation of licenses.
They are so unproductive that when someone tells them, "here is our 
draft license, please comment",
they 1) avoid any constructive criticism, 2) wait until after the draft 
period has passed.
They become very protective against the criticism and tend deem anything 
as non-free, even if
the FSF thinks they are ok. Oh, the GFDL is "not free" either.

References:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/08/msg00275.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/09/msg00004.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/11/threads.html#00314
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/12/threads.html#00074
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Debian#Legal

Simos