2014-06-09 07:16, Christian PERRIER wrote: > From our package naming policy, the source package name should be > something like fonts-crulp-nafeesnastaleeq (we should probably then > rename the existign fonts-nafees package to fonts-crulp-nafeeswebnaskh.
It looks like CRULP is CLE nowadays => fonts-cle-nafeesnastaleeq 2014-06-09 16:43, Nicolas Spalinger wrote: > BTW, if you haven't noticed yet, there are significant issues with the > licensing of this font that still need fixing (it's sadly a non-standard > mishmash of licenses with little coherence, legal validity or practical > use cases: > http://www.cle.org.pk/software/license/Nafees_Nastaleeq_License.html So > I would expect our ftpmasters to seriously frown on this and reject > it!). Well, please let me remind of the fact that another font with the very same license is packaged in fonts-nafees and has been in the Debian archive for 8 years. Consequently it would be pretty inconsistent to reject a request to add Nafees Nastaleeq, wouldn't it? There are other Nastaleeq fonts. For instance, from the discussion at the related Ubuntu bug I understand that some Urdu users would prefer Jameel Noori Nastaleeq over Nafees Nastaleeq. http://www.ffonts.net/Jameel-Noori-Nastaleeq.font The ttf files included in the zip that can be downloaded from there have this embedded copyright notice: "This Font Is Free Of Charge For Urdu Lovers" Suppose that wouldn't make the ftpmasters feel more comfortable. ;) I get the impression that the FOSS concept isn't well established in Pakistan. Let's not be too picky about licenses while trying to change that. -- Gunnar Hjalmarsson https://launchpad.net/~gunnarhj -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org