Re: [Libreoffice-ux-advise] including Ubuntu fonts in Windows/OSX installers

2013-01-25 Thread Michael Meeks 
Hi guys,

On Thu, 2013-01-24 at 19:56 -0600, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
 Note: I will abide by whatever decision is reached

The ESC discussed this precise issue in the past; and made a decision
not to include the Ubuntu font, and because of that, this is the status
quo today. No doubt someone clever could dig out the minutes on that.

If we want to re-discuss it - since the issue is a legal /
advertising / bikeshed-cum-flame-bait issue. I'd recommend we re-discuss
it in an ESC call preferably after 4.0 / FOSDEM. The more concise,
accurate and detailed a write-up we have for all the fonts we currently
ship the better the decision we can take. Anyone griping about this
should build better data: Name, License, coverage, binary-size, hinting
etc. One potential solution might be to remove other non-free fonts (if
indeed we are bundling them) - OTOH - there is AFAICS no need for a
hasty conclusion on this: we can tweak this for 4.0.1 and/or 3.6.next
as/when necessary.

 but let's not pretend that this is not, for all practical purpose, an
 advertising clause.

ATB,

Michael.

-- 
michael.me...@suse.com  , Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot

___
Libreoffice-ux-advise mailing list
Libreoffice-ux-advise@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-ux-advise

Re: [Libreoffice-ux-advise] including Ubuntu fonts in Windows/OSX installers

2013-01-24 Thread Stefan Knorr (Astron) 
Hi Tor,

On 24 January 2013 10:27, Tor Lillqvist t...@iki.fi wrote:
 If the Ubuntu typeface is so unique as they say (i.e. instantly
 recognisable) (or even worse, subconsciously recognised), wouldn't
 using it in templates then be an endorsement of Ubuntu? Isn't
 LibreOffice supposed to be vendor-neutral?

As for its aesthetics, it is certainly somewhat unique, but not
unprecedented. E.g. the commercial font FF Dax [1] has quite a few
similarities.
Following Google including the Ubuntu font in its web font repository,
it has been used by others as well. E.g., it is widely used on the
Sourceforge website. (It is of course still called Ubuntu which you
could maybe see as an endorsement – which I think is one of the bigger
mistakes Canonical have made with the font. Segoe UI isn't called
Microsoft, either. Same for Lucida Grande/Mac OS,
Roboto/Android, etc.)

Regards,
Astron.


[1] https://www.fontfont.com/fonts/dax/regular
___
Libreoffice-ux-advise mailing list
Libreoffice-ux-advise@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-ux-advise

Re: [Libreoffice-ux-advise] including Ubuntu fonts in Windows/OSX installers

2013-01-24 Thread Rene Engelhard 
Hi,

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:13:43AM +0100, Stefan Knorr (Astron) wrote:
 On 24 January 2013 10:27, Tor Lillqvist t...@iki.fi wrote:
  with LibreOffice on Windows and OSX? That would make them available for 
  use in
  default templates etc.

And why should that be needed?

 Personally, I'd love to see it in LibreOffice, especially because it

I don't. Distro specific font... They can ship it if they want.

 sets (Latin, Cyrillic, Greek, Arabic, IIRC). However, I thought there
 were a few objections to the UFL license's (renaming etc.)
 restrictions..?

Yeah, For that reason it's /supposed to be in) non-free in Debian, see
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=603157.

We shouldn't include non-free stuff here.

Regards,

Rene
___
Libreoffice-ux-advise mailing list
Libreoffice-ux-advise@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-ux-advise

Re: [Libreoffice-ux-advise] including Ubuntu fonts in Windows/OSX installers

2013-01-24 Thread Adolfo Jayme Barrientos 
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Rene Engelhard r...@debian.org wrote:
 I don't. Distro specific font... They can ship it if they want.

What does it mean “distro-specific”?

 Yeah, For that reason it's /supposed to be in) non-free in Debian, see
 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=603157.

 We shouldn't include non-free stuff here.

Yeah, it’s considered “non-free” by Debian, but we can apply the same
logic to the other “non-free” fonts added to LibreOffice, such as Open
Sans, Source {Code|Sans} Pro and PT Serif. But instead of removing
these from shipping in LibreOffice, Debian packaging should be the
place where these fonts are removed. Because its *Debian policy* which
should not obstaculize LibreOffice from shipping fonts to Windows.

-- 
Adolfo
___
Libreoffice-ux-advise mailing list
Libreoffice-ux-advise@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-ux-advise

Re: [Libreoffice-ux-advise] including Ubuntu fonts in Windows/OSX installers

2013-01-24 Thread Adolfo Jayme Barrientos 
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Stefan Knorr (Astron)
heinzless...@gmail.com wrote:
 Can you clarify why you think these fonts are not free? Afaik, they
 are under the fairly standard, free AL2, or OFL, respectively. The
 Ubuntu font otoh uses its own license that unfortunately adds
 restrictions on when you can rename it and when you can't.
 It removes value from our templates if you can't actually use them as
 intended on some of the supported platforms, so the question if the
 font can be found in all our main platforms is somewhat important.

Astron, the UFL is as permissive as the OFL and the ALv2. And I don’t
think Open Sans, PT Serif and Source are not free, please re-read my
previous message, it is Debian who thinks they’re not free, because
they were created with proprietary software (read: not created with
FontForge).

My position on this is to continue shipping Open/PT/Source and add
Ubuntu as well. But -- Debian would need to remove our fonts in their
package.

-- 
Adolfo
___
Libreoffice-ux-advise mailing list
Libreoffice-ux-advise@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-ux-advise

Re: [Libreoffice-ux-advise] including Ubuntu fonts in Windows/OSX installers

2013-01-24 Thread Rene Engelhard 
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:56:29AM -0600, Adolfo Jayme Barrientos wrote:
 On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Rene Engelhard r...@debian.org wrote:
  I don't. Distro specific font... They can ship it if they want.
 
 What does it mean “distro-specific”?

Ubuntu fonts. If it wasn't distro-specific it wouldn't be called Ubuntu 
fonts
in the first place.

  Yeah, For that reason it's /supposed to be in) non-free in Debian, see
  http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=603157.
 
  We shouldn't include non-free stuff here.
 
 Yeah, it’s considered “non-free” by Debian, but we can apply the same
 logic to the other “non-free” fonts added to LibreOffice, such as Open
 Sans, Source {Code|Sans} Pro and PT Serif. But instead of removing

Err, you want to tell me we already have them in the sources?

 these from shipping in LibreOffice, Debian packaging should be the
 place where these fonts are removed. Because its *Debian policy* which
 should not obstaculize LibreOffice from shipping fonts to Windows.

Erm, you forgot this is a OSS project (aka free software for those who
don't like free[1]). So we must not ship them either.

Everyone who wants custom installers with that crap can add it *themselves*.

Regards,

Rene

[1] free as in beer.
___
Libreoffice-ux-advise mailing list
Libreoffice-ux-advise@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-ux-advise

Re: [Libreoffice-ux-advise] including Ubuntu fonts in Windows/OSX installers

2013-01-24 Thread Rene Engelhard 
Hi,

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 09:15:22PM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote:
   We shouldn't include non-free stuff here.
  
  Yeah, it’s considered “non-free” by Debian, but we can apply the same
  logic to the other “non-free” fonts added to LibreOffice, such as Open
  Sans, Source {Code|Sans} Pro and PT Serif. But instead of removing
 
 Err, you want to tell me we already have them in the sources?

Ah, thankfully not. It at least is external stuff downloaded so I just
don't need to fetch that and don't need to repackage the core tarball...
(and new in 4.0, which didn't get get that much reviewed as not yet uploaded
to Debian...)
(And I build with -without-fonts anyway so I don't even need to fix the build.
phew.)

Regards,
 
Rene
___
Libreoffice-ux-advise mailing list
Libreoffice-ux-advise@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-ux-advise

Re: [Libreoffice-ux-advise] including Ubuntu fonts in Windows/OSX installers

2013-01-24 Thread Michael Stahl 
On 24/01/13 21:15, Rene Engelhard wrote:
 On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:56:29AM -0600, Adolfo Jayme Barrientos wrote:
 On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Rene Engelhard r...@debian.org wrote:

 Yeah, For that reason it's /supposed to be in) non-free in Debian, see
 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=603157.

 We shouldn't include non-free stuff here.

 Yeah, it’s considered “non-free” by Debian, but we can apply the same
 logic to the other “non-free” fonts added to LibreOffice, such as Open
 Sans, Source {Code|Sans} Pro and PT Serif. But instead of removing
 
 Err, you want to tell me we already have them in the sources?

it appears so, see
more_fonts/UnpackedTarball_{opensans,ptserif,sourcecode,sourcesans}.mk

but it can be disabled via --without-fonts

 these from shipping in LibreOffice, Debian packaging should be the
 place where these fonts are removed. Because its *Debian policy* which
 should not obstaculize LibreOffice from shipping fonts to Windows.
 
 Erm, you forgot this is a OSS project (aka free software for those who
 don't like free[1]). So we must not ship them either.

hmm... if the problem is can only be built from source with non-free
tools, then i'm afraid we've got a few components in extensions/ that
can only be built with MSVC, not with MinGW, and of course the Windows
binaries also bundle non-free MSVC runtime.


___
Libreoffice-ux-advise mailing list
Libreoffice-ux-advise@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-ux-advise

Re: [Libreoffice-ux-advise] including Ubuntu fonts in Windows/OSX installers

2013-01-24 Thread Rene Engelhard 
Hi,

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 09:15:22PM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote:
  these from shipping in LibreOffice, Debian packaging should be the
  place where these fonts are removed. Because its *Debian policy* which

And sorry, that is wrong. the DFSG is (mostly) deintical with the Open Source
Defintion.

Becaudse *you* don't care about what Open Source is doesn't mean that all the
people who care should do stuff to clean it up.

Regards,

Rene
___
Libreoffice-ux-advise mailing list
Libreoffice-ux-advise@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-ux-advise

Re: [Libreoffice-ux-advise] including Ubuntu fonts in Windows/OSX installers

2013-01-24 Thread Rene Engelhard 
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:56:29AM -0600, Adolfo Jayme Barrientos wrote:
 logic to the other “non-free” fonts added to LibreOffice, such as Open
 Sans, Source {Code|Sans} Pro and PT Serif. But instead of removing

This shows that you don't know what you're talking about, too:

- I assume with PT Serif you mean these:
$ tar xfvz c3c1a8ba7452950636e871d25020ce0d-pt-serif-font-1.W.tar.gz
pt-serif-font-1.W/
pt-serif-font-1.W/PT_Serif-Web-Regular.ttf
pt-serif-font-1.W/PT_Serif-Web-Italic.ttf
pt-serif-font-1.W/PT_Serif-Web-BoldItalic.ttf
pt-serif-font-1.W/OFL.txt
pt-serif-font-1.W/PT_Serif-Web-Bold.ttf

This is - as seen above - OFL, which *is* accepted in Debian.
http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#The_Open_Font_License

- I assume with Open Sans you mean these:
$ tar xfvz 7a15edea7d415ac5150ea403e27401fd-open-sans-font-ttf-1.10.tar.gz
open-sans-font-ttf-1.10/
open-sans-font-ttf-1.10/OpenSans-BoldItalic.ttf
open-sans-font-ttf-1.10/OpenSans-Regular.ttf
open-sans-font-ttf-1.10/OpenSans-Bold.ttf
open-sans-font-ttf-1.10/LICENSE.txt
open-sans-font-ttf-1.10/OpenSans-Italic.ttf

This is ALv2. OBVIOUSLY free

- I assume with Source * Pro you mean these:
$ tar xfvz 0279a21fab6f245e85a6f85fea54f511-source-code-font-1.009.tar.gz
source-code-font-1.009/
source-code-font-1.009/SourceCodePro-Regular.ttf
source-code-font-1.009/SourceCodePro-Bold.ttf
source-code-font-1.009/OFL.txt

This is also OFL. See PT Serif.
 
All free.

(On contrast to the Ubuntu one.)

Regards,

Rene
___
Libreoffice-ux-advise mailing list
Libreoffice-ux-advise@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-ux-advise

Re: [Libreoffice-ux-advise] including Ubuntu fonts in Windows/OSX installers

2013-01-24 Thread Adolfo Jayme Barrientos 
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Rene Engelhard r...@debian.org wrote:
 Becaudse *you* don't care about what Open Source is doesn't mean that all 
 the
 people who care should do stuff to clean it up.

Hello, Rene Engelhard. It is the first time you and I talk to each
other, and we had never met face-to-face. Is this the way you talk to
people, assuming things like “you don’t care”? This says a lot from
you, and if you want to know: I do care, if I didn’t, I wouldn’t spend
so much of my free time contributing to LibreOffice.

Now, going on-topic: the UFL does not forbid LibreOffice from
including Ubuntu [1], we are not renaming it, and honestly, calling it
“distro-specific” based on just the name, is throwing bullshit. There
is a cola beverage named Ubuntu, and it is not affiliated with
Canonical, why including the fonts in LibreOffice would be interpreted
as endorsing the distro? Even if it did, that would be a benefit to
Debian, come on! Rene Engelhard, let’s not make this a discussion on
the Debian bug you linked, this is not the appropriate place.

[1]: http://font.ubuntu.com/ufl/FAQ.html

-- 
Adolfo
___
Libreoffice-ux-advise mailing list
Libreoffice-ux-advise@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-ux-advise

Re: [Libreoffice-ux-advise] including Ubuntu fonts in Windows/OSX installers

2013-01-24 Thread Adolfo Jayme Barrientos 
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Norbert Thiebaud nthieb...@gmail.com wrote:
 If the name was so inconsequential, why did the author choose a
 license that forbid _changing_ the name ?

 It is one thing to get distros to cooperate together one large project
 like libreoffice, it is quite another to purposefully try to piss-off
 their respective Marketing Dept.

 Norbert (who is not working for any distro, but can imagine why they
 would find that irritating)

IMHO it is really wrong to imply we’re trying to do free advertising
by suggesting the addition of the Ubuntu font to LibreOffice. That’s
not the intent, and great typography shouldn’t go to the trash basket
just because some don’t like the name. It is my desire that Windows
users of LibreOffice —those who don’t know a bit about Linux
distros—get another set of great fonts for their use and pleasure.
(See also: http://pad.lv/703990 “Can the Ubuntu font license avoid
advertising-style clause?”)

-- 
Adolfo
___
Libreoffice-ux-advise mailing list
Libreoffice-ux-advise@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-ux-advise

Re: [Libreoffice-ux-advise] including Ubuntu fonts in Windows/OSX installers

2013-01-24 Thread Adolfo Jayme Barrientos 
 If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck,
 then it probably is a duck.
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test

Oh well, I will not try to convince you, you seem to believe this is
marketing. I’m not the appropriate person to keep arguing, because: 1)
I’m a typography lover that happened to like Dalton Maag’s work; 2) I
am an Ubuntu translator as well as LibreOffice’s (so you’d think I’m
biased) and 3) I’m not yet a TDF member and I don’t seem to have more
voice here than your neighbourhood complainer. The detractors of this
proposal are pointing out unrelated issues with the font and excuses
to not considering, people loves to hate Canonical —why is everybody
happy to do “free advertising” for Ascender/Google, ParaType and Adobe
then?— and I’m tired by today. So…

-- 
Adolfo
___
Libreoffice-ux-advise mailing list
Libreoffice-ux-advise@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-ux-advise

Re: [Libreoffice-ux-advise] including Ubuntu fonts in Windows/OSX installers

2013-01-24 Thread Rene Engelhard 
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 04:51:11PM -0600, Adolfo Jayme Barrientos wrote:
 On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Rene Engelhard r...@debian.org wrote:
  Becaudse *you* don't care about what Open Source is doesn't mean that all 
  the
  people who care should do stuff to clean it up.
 
 Hello, Rene Engelhard. It is the first time you and I talk to each
 other, and we had never met face-to-face. Is this the way you talk to
 people, assuming things like “you don’t care”? This says a lot from
 you, and if you want to know: I do care, if I didn’t, I wouldn’t spend
 so much of my free time contributing to LibreOffice.

Yes, we never met, but from your last post it *seems* you don't care,
as you say LO should include the non-fee font and Debian should remove it.
If you cared about OSS you would defend a software containing only that
and would reject non-free fonts outright.

 Now, going on-topic: the UFL does not forbid LibreOffice from
 including Ubuntu [1], we are not renaming it, and honestly, calling it

Not allowing to rename it fails the DFSG/Open Source Definition.

 as endorsing the distro? Even if it did, that would be a benefit to
 Debian, come on! Rene Engelhard, let’s not make this a discussion on

How?

Regards,

Rene
___
Libreoffice-ux-advise mailing list
Libreoffice-ux-advise@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-ux-advise