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 someon
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 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.
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:44 PM, Adolfo Jayme Barrientos
wrote:
>> "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.
> "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 typograph
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 6:42 PM, Adolfo Jayme Barrientos
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Norbert Thiebaud 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
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Norbert Thiebaud 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
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Adolfo Jayme Barrientos
wrote:
> 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 name
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Rene Engelhard 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
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
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
Defin
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 wrote:
>>> Yeah, For that reason it's /supposed to be in) non-free in Debian, see
>>> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi
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}
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 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
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Stefan Knorr (Astron)
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 r
Hi Adolfo,
On 24 January 2013 17:56, Adolfo Jayme Barrientos wrote:
> 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.
Can you clarify why you think these fo
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Rene Engelhard 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
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:13:43AM +0100, Stefan Knorr (Astron) wrote:
> On 24 January 2013 10:27, Tor Lillqvist 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
Hi Tor,
On 24 January 2013 10:27, Tor Lillqvist 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
Hi Björn, Tor,
On 24 January 2013 10:27, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
>> with LibreOffice on Windows and OSX? That would make them available for use
>> in
>> default templates etc.
Personally, I'd love to see it in LibreOffice, especially because it
is one of the very few opensource fonts that covers s
19 matches
Mail list logo
