Hi guys,
On Thu, 2013-01-24 at 19:56 -0600, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
Note: I will abide by whatever decision is reached
The ESC discussed this precise issue in the past; and made a decision
not to include the Ubuntu font, and because of that, this is the status
quo today. No doubt
Hi Tor,
On 24 January 2013 10:27, Tor Lillqvist t...@iki.fi wrote:
If the Ubuntu typeface is so unique as they say (i.e. instantly
recognisable) (or even worse, subconsciously recognised), wouldn't
using it in templates then be an endorsement of Ubuntu? Isn't
LibreOffice supposed to be
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:13:43AM +0100, Stefan Knorr (Astron) wrote:
On 24 January 2013 10:27, Tor Lillqvist t...@iki.fi wrote:
with LibreOffice on Windows and OSX? That would make them available for
use in
default templates etc.
And why should that be needed?
Personally, I'd
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Rene Engelhard r...@debian.org wrote:
I don't. Distro specific font... They can ship it if they want.
What does it mean “distro-specific”?
Yeah, For that reason it's /supposed to be in) non-free in Debian, see
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Stefan Knorr (Astron)
heinzless...@gmail.com wrote:
Can you clarify why you think these fonts are not free? Afaik, they
are under the fairly standard, free AL2, or OFL, respectively. The
Ubuntu font otoh uses its own license that unfortunately adds
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:56:29AM -0600, Adolfo Jayme Barrientos wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Rene Engelhard r...@debian.org wrote:
I don't. Distro specific font... They can ship it if they want.
What does it mean “distro-specific”?
Ubuntu fonts. If it wasn't distro-specific it
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 09:15:22PM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote:
We shouldn't include non-free stuff here.
Yeah, it’s considered “non-free” by Debian, but we can apply the same
logic to the other “non-free” fonts added to LibreOffice, such as Open
Sans, Source {Code|Sans} Pro and
On 24/01/13 21:15, Rene Engelhard wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:56:29AM -0600, Adolfo Jayme Barrientos wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Rene Engelhard r...@debian.org wrote:
Yeah, For that reason it's /supposed to be in) non-free in Debian, see
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 09:15:22PM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote:
these from shipping in LibreOffice, Debian packaging should be the
place where these fonts are removed. Because its *Debian policy* which
And sorry, that is wrong. the DFSG is (mostly) deintical with the Open Source
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:56:29AM -0600, Adolfo Jayme Barrientos wrote:
logic to the other “non-free” fonts added to LibreOffice, such as Open
Sans, Source {Code|Sans} Pro and PT Serif. But instead of removing
This shows that you don't know what you're talking about, too:
- I assume with PT
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Rene Engelhard r...@debian.org wrote:
Becaudse *you* don't care about what Open Source is doesn't mean that all
the
people who care should do stuff to clean it up.
Hello, Rene Engelhard. It is the first time you and I talk to each
other, and we had never met
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Norbert Thiebaud nthieb...@gmail.com wrote:
If the name was so inconsequential, why did the author choose a
license that forbid _changing_ the name ?
It is one thing to get distros to cooperate together one large project
like libreoffice, it is quite another
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck,
then it probably is a duck.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test
Oh well, I will not try to convince you, you seem to believe this is
marketing. I’m not the appropriate person to keep arguing, because: 1)
I’m a typography
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 04:51:11PM -0600, Adolfo Jayme Barrientos wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Rene Engelhard r...@debian.org wrote:
Becaudse *you* don't care about what Open Source is doesn't mean that all
the
people who care should do stuff to clean it up.
Hello, Rene
14 matches
Mail list logo
