On 11/09/2009 07:42 AM, Igshaan Mesias wrote:
> Hi Everyone
>
>
> I've packaged the M+ collection of fonts. I've not yet submitted a
> review because I am unsure about what to label the 'License' tag in spec
> file given its authors have simply put the license as follows:
>
> http://mplus-fonts.
On 09/19/2009 02:14 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 09/19/2009 08:17 PM, Brandon Casey wrote:
>>
>> I am interested in embedding the Libertine font within an application at
>> work, so that this application can produce documents using the Libertine
>> font. The target systems will not have the Libe
On 09/08/2009 01:50 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le mardi 08 septembre 2009 à 09:11 +0800, Yuan Yijun a écrit :
>> Hi,
>>
>> The package wine-fonts is not mentioned, why?
>
> Excellent question, it certainly should have been, and I have no idea
> why. Maybe it was not present in the source repo I
On 09/06/2009 12:18 PM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Since Spot is fed up with FarsiWeb, I guess we
> should just drop it from the wishlist to avoid re-opening the subject
> later.
I wouldn't say I'm fed up with FarsiWeb, it is simply that the situation
has not changed. Those fonts are still derived f
On 2009-02-03 at 17:50:16 -0500, Nicolas Mailhot
wrote:
> Therefore, I'm doing a public call on Fedora lists, for someone to
> package those, and prove Besarion Paata Gugushvili was right to trust
> Fedora.
Packaged. Awaiting review:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483865
~spot
___
On 2009-01-28 at 10:08:01 -0500, "Nicolas Mailhot"
wrote:
> If we start worrying about this we may as well refuse to package all
> the fonts that do not include full licensing information in their
> metadata, since nothing would stop the hypothetical third-party to
> re-distribute the font files w
On 2009-01-28 at 8:41:39 -0500, "Nicolas Mailhot"
wrote:
> However if you don't you'll have to deal with the directory ownership
> of the common font directory (I purposefully didn't want to open this
> particular can of worm) and other common files.
>
> Also documentation can be bulky, especiall
On 2009-01-28 at 1:05:01 -0500, Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
> Of course, if the user really wants to, she can investigate the binary
> RPM, and find pointers to the actual license, and go and find the
> license. But we would not be redistributing the license with "each
> copy".
>
> Please enlighten
On Mon, 2008-09-01 at 13:57 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le mardi 12 août 2008 à 15:41 +0300, Vasile Gaburici a écrit :
> > Seems to me this way:
> > http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6252671/description.html
> > But IANAL...
>
> For this kind of question, ask fedora-legal or spot
More font f
On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 22:22 +0100, Dave Crossland wrote:
> 2008/7/30 Vasile Gaburici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > My lack of legal brain is confused on this. If URW doesn't change the
> > license and it remains purely GPL, but the other contributors agree to
> > re-license their parts as GLP+FontExcept
On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 19:13 +0100, Dave Crossland wrote:
> URW's GPL release does not include the "font exception" additional
> permission; indeed, it predates it.
Yes, however, GPL is not incompatible with "GPL with font exception".
It doesn't make sense to continue using GPL without the font ex
On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 12:59 +0300, Vasile Gaburici wrote:
> As you can see, there is no attempt to missattribute the work. The
> only trouble is that GUST attempted to relicense the work under more
> liberal terms, from GPL to LPPL/GUST. IMHO, the way is to convince URW
> and the two individual con
12 matches
Mail list logo
