>> Is there a meaningful difference in the two licenses for fonts? LGPL
>> is necessary for code, which gets loaded at runtime to a closed-source
>> executable, but fonts contain no code, and thus aren't loaded.
>
> A good point, but I'm not qualified to answer that. I suspect that the
> SFC would
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Juan Lang wrote:
>>> Along those lines, the hard drive space is cheap on this one. Seems
>>> like Wine packagers could just include the fonts and install them
>>> locally in c:\windows\fonts.
>>
>> The Liberation fonts are GPL licensed, Wine is LGPL.
>
> Is there
>> Along those lines, the hard drive space is cheap on this one. Seems
>> like Wine packagers could just include the fonts and install them
>> locally in c:\windows\fonts.
>
> The Liberation fonts are GPL licensed, Wine is LGPL.
Is there a meaningful difference in the two licenses for fonts? LGP
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:59 PM, Brian Vincent wrote:
> Along those lines, the hard drive space is cheap on this one. Seems
> like Wine packagers could just include the fonts and install them
> locally in c:\windows\fonts.
The Liberation fonts are GPL licensed, Wine is LGPL.
--
-Austin
2010/8/12 André Hentschel :
> Wow, can you please update http://wiki.winehq.org/FontLoadOrder with these
> great informations?
I'm not sure that's the _best_ page for it (this isn't about font
loading, but font substitution) but I'll see about writing it all up
properly this weekend. (And if I'm
Am 12.08.2010 06:11, schrieb Paul "TBBle" Hampson:
> Sorry, I failed at Gmail again. >_<
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Paul "TBBle" Hampson
> Date: 12 August 2010 13:52
> Subject: Re: Should we expect Liberation fonts to be
Sorry, I failed at Gmail again. >_<
-- Forwarded message --
From: Paul "TBBle" Hampson
Date: 12 August 2010 13:52
Subject: Re: Should we expect Liberation fonts to be installed?
To: Scott Ritchie
On 8 August 2010 13:02, Scott Ritchie wrote:
> On 08/03/2
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 8:58 PM, Scott Ritchie wrote:
>> This might work for Linux, but these fonts are not installed on any
>> MacOSX version that I'm aware of. This might break Wine useage for
>> Macs. It might also break it for Solaris as well.
>
> It should only break in a way that makes it a
On 08/08/2010 06:56 AM, James McKenzie wrote:
> Scott Ritchie wrote:
>> I was looking through our fairly large collection of open font bugs and
>> realized that things might be a lot simpler if we took some opinionated
>> positions and just declared certain fonts to be dependencies and
>> expected
On 08/03/2010 01:57 PM, Scott Ritchie wrote:
> I was looking through our fairly large collection of open font bugs and
> realized that things might be a lot simpler if we took some opinionated
> positions and just declared certain fonts to be dependencies and
> expected all packagers to provide the
On 08/03/2010 03:09 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 3 August 2010 21:57, Scott Ritchie wrote:
>
>> This bug, for instance, prevents Photoshop from working unless there is
>> an Arial font installed: http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9623
>> Wine doesn't seem to respect system-level fontconfig a
On 3 August 2010 21:57, Scott Ritchie wrote:
> This bug, for instance, prevents Photoshop from working unless there is
> an Arial font installed: http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9623
> Wine doesn't seem to respect system-level fontconfig aliases, so even
> though Liberation Sans is install
I was looking through our fairly large collection of open font bugs and
realized that things might be a lot simpler if we took some opinionated
positions and just declared certain fonts to be dependencies and
expected all packagers to provide them.
This is similar to bundling our own Tahoma, excep
13 matches
Mail list logo
