This discussion is icky to me. 1. I do not want to login to Github to discuss a KDE project
2. We are not engaging with the authors and maintainer to make this application fully within the KDE community (which includes licensing) 3. The discussion is about licensing instead of helping to improve the logo by bringing in the VDG. The VDG just created a kickass logo for Falkon; surely they can make something better than the Latte Dock present logo? Valorie On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 6:45 AM, Michail Vourlakos <mvourla...@gmail.com> wrote: > Jonathan can you please participate at: > https://github.com/psifidotos/Latte-Dock/issues/884#issuecomment-368876977 > > for this? > > the ubuntu member I think responded there... > > 2018-02-27 14:52 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Riddell <j...@jriddell.org>: > >> On 27 February 2018 at 09:24, Michail Vourlakos <mvourla...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > Today I received from RikMills that Latte was rejected from ubuntu >> because >> > it contains an OPL-licensed font (tangerine). >> > >> > The discussion is at: https://github.com/psifidotos/ >> Latte-Dock/issues/884 >> > >> > The font is used just for a label in the configuration window to draw >> the >> > "Latte" text at the top-left corner. I thought that an alternative >> could be >> > to just screenshot the label in a png and use that one and drop totally >> the >> > tangerine font distrubution through Latte code... >> > >> > Do you have any ideas what we can do for this and if this is acceptable >> for >> > OPL? >> >> Font licencing is a bit of a quagmire but I really don't see any issue >> here. >> >> The font is freely licenced and .ttf can be considered preferred >> modifiable form so there's no freedom issue. >> >> He says "Source embeds and uses at runtime a GPL-incompatible >> (OPL-Licensed) font; " but I see no embedding happening, it just >> ships the file which doesn't make it a derived work. Loading a font >> file at runtime is done by every GUI program very often, it doesn't >> make it a derived work so there's no effect on copyleft licencing >> requirements. >> >> I recommend Ubuntu discuss this with their archive admins to see why >> they consider it a derived work. I am an Ubuntu archive admin and can >> take part in that conversation if wanted. If that doesn't get >> anywhere then play a political workaround and just upload it without >> the .ttf font, I presume the text where it's used will just fall back >> to some other font. Maybe Latte-dock code can be changed to >> explicitly fall back to a generic cursive font if it doesn't find it >> but only if there's a desire to go out of the way for incorrectly >> applied rules. >> >> Jonathan >> > > -- http://about.me/valoriez
