Quoting Thomas Lamprecht (2021-11-24 10:03:09) > 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?
Haven't tested but might be enough source to produce binaries, yes. But for Debian to _distribute_ produced binaries, license is required which seems still missing for the source project. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
