Control: forwarded -1 https://github.com/googlefonts/RobotoMono/issues/26
Quoting Thomas Lamprecht (2021-11-24 11:45:29) > On 24.11.21 10:37, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > 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. > > Make sense, and seems that I've again shot from hips a bit too fast, > there's a issue open[0] on that repo regarding the missing license, > mentioning explicitly Debian, so I'll watch that one and won't bother > this bug report until there's any relevant actual change. > > [0]: https://github.com/googlefonts/RobotoMono/issues/26 Your interest and input is valuable - you are *not* "bothering". Updated upstream reference to point to that issue #26 you found (not exactly a forward of same issue as this one, but more related than previously referenced https://github.com/googlefonts/roboto/issues/64 which is about a fork of Roboto Mono). - 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
