On Sun, 21 Nov 2021 18:45:25 +0100 Jonas Smedegaard <[email protected]> wrote: > Quoting Thomas Lamprecht (2021-11-21 17:29:07) > > On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 10:35:41 +0000 Phil Armstrong <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 21:35:58 -0500 Jeremy Bicha wrote: > > > >Google hasn't really published their sources for Roboto Mono yet so I > > > think it's more appropriate for that to go into contrib instead for > > > now. > > > > > > The sources to Roboto Mono appear to have been published here in 2018: > > > > > > https://github.com/googlefonts/RobotoMono > > > > > > but there’s no licence in the repo at the moment. I’ve raised an issue, > > > so hopefully Google will add one & we can get this font packaged in > > > Debian! > > > > There's also another repo with a license file which marks it as Apache-2.0: > > > > https://github.com/google/fonts/tree/main/apache/robotomono > > As previously mentioned in this bugreport, > https://github.com/google/fonts/ contains only binary products, not > sources. License for non-source code is relevant only if released in > non-free. >
Argh, sorry - missed that; but it seems that the other repo also linked here in this bug report got some updates since its initial mentioning (when it wasn't complete yet), and contains now all sources (FWICT, not really a font developer): https://github.com/googlefonts/RobotoMono/tree/main/sources and also the built fonts, e.g.: https://github.com/googlefonts/RobotoMono/tree/main/fonts/ttf would that be enough? cheers, Thomas
