Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Adding Inferno to GNU Guix: font issues.
On Sat, 2018-11-03 at 21:22 +0100, Diego Nicola Barbato wrote: > Is it enough to remove the non-free fonts in order to make Inferno > compatible with the FSDG, or are there further issues, namely that > the fonts can not be rebuilt from source (i.e. there is no source) Under the FSDG fonts are mentioned as part of "information for practical use." [0] The FSDG goes on to say that "all information for practical use in a free distribution must be available in source form." If there is no source then it can't meet that criteria. It also sounds like a GPL violation if they're licensed in that way as you say and have no source. That's another reason to avoid them then since there would be no way to comply with the license even if they were added. [0] https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.htm l
[GNU-linux-libre] Adding Inferno to GNU Guix: licensing issues.
Hello folks, As I wrote in this [1] thread I have some questions concerning possible licensing issues, which arose while determining the FSDG compatibility of Inferno [2], which I am trying to package for GNU Guix [3]. The NOTICE [4] in the root of Inferno’s source tree [5] claims that while “different portions” of the code are “subject to different licence terms” the GPLv2+ “governs the collection” and that the other licenses “are all compatible with the GPLv2”. Unfortunately some portions of the code are subject to the ‘Lucent Public License 1.02’ (LPL), which is incompatible with the GPL according to this [6] list. This obviously contradicts the compatibility claim in NOTICE and, since LPL code (‘libmp’ and ‘libsec’) is combined with GPL code when building ‘emu’ (i.e ‘hosted Inferno’), it looks like it could be a GPL violation. There is some more LPL code in the ‘os’ directory, which is not used for building ‘emu’, and in the ‘appl’ and ‘module’ directories, which contain Limbo code, which is run on Inferno but not used to build it. I have considered suggesting that the compatibility claim be removed and an exception [7] be added in a bug report to upstream. But since I am a random person who stumbled across some FAQ on the internet I want to make sure that I have analysed the situation correctly and that my “solution” is adequate before I do that. Does the described situation really constitute a GPL violation (or are the authors allowed to do this, as they are the copyright holders of all the code)? Would the aforementioned “solution” fix this? Is it still possible to provide the “collection” under the GPLv2+? Can Inferno be added to a FSDG distro in its current state or do the licensing issues have to be resolved before this can be considered? Greetings Diego [1]: https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2018-11/msg0.html [2]: http://inferno-os.org [3]: https://gnu.org/software/guix [4]: NOTICE Description: NOTICE [5]: https://bitbucket.org/inferno-os/inferno-os/src [6]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#lucent102 [7]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs
[GNU-linux-libre] Adding Inferno to GNU Guix: font issues.
Hello folks, I have written a package definition for adding Inferno [1] to GNU Guix [2]. While trying to determine if Inferno is compatible with the FSDG some questions concerning bundled fonts and licensing arose, which I was unable to answer myself, so it was suggested that I ask for advice on this mailing list [3]. In this mail I will only ask about the font issues. I will address the licensing issues in a separate thread. The ‘fonts’ directory in the Inferno source tree (as provided by this [4] mercurial repository) contains a variety of fonts in a format [5] native to Inferno (and Plan 9). Some of these fonts (‘lucidasans’, ‘pelm’, ‘lucida’ and ‘lucm’) are non-free (copyright Bigelow & Holmes [6]) and I took care to remove them from the source. Among the remaining fonts ‘jis’ and ‘misc’ are derived from X (according to their respective README [7][8]) and ‘vera’ is probably derived from ‘Bitstream Vera’, whereas ‘big5’ [9], ‘courier’, ‘gb’ and ‘minitel’ are of unclear origin. Finally ‘charon’, ‘chinese’, and ‘minicharon’ simply reuse "subfonts" from the previously mentioned fonts. It should be further noted that IIUC it is implied by the NOTICE [10] in the root of the source tree that the fonts which do not have their own license are GPLv2+. Is it enough to remove the non-free fonts in order to make Inferno compatible with the FSDG, or are there further issues, namely that the fonts can not be rebuilt from source (i.e. there is no source) and that the origin of some of them is unclear? Greetings Diego [1]: http://inferno-os.org [2]: https://gnu.org/software/guix [3]: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2018-10/msg00440.html [4]: https://bitbucket.org/inferno-os/inferno-os [5]: font Description: man/6/font [6]: LICENCE Description: fonts/LICENSE [7]: README Description: fonts/jis/README [8]: README Description: fonts/misc/README [9]: README Description: fonts/big5/README [10]: NOTICE Description: NOTICE
