I'm out of the office until 1st August. On 26 Apr 2011, at 13:15, Mark Shuttleworth <[email protected]> wrote:
> The name requirements in the UFL are the result of some protracted > conversations with font designers, and they don't restrict what can be > done with the work in any way, they provide a framework for naming > only. > As such, they appear to be in compliance with the DFSG as it stands > today, which specifically recognises that works can be free even if > they > have special requirements around naming and versioning. The UFL > amounts > to a requirement that minor derivatives use a version like "derivative > Foo X.y" > > I respect the right of the ftp-masters to make their own call on that, > but it doesn't seem to add up under current Debian policy as I read > it. > > Mark > > -- > You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu > Font Family Drivers, which is subscribed to Ubuntu Font Family. > https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/769874 > > Title: > Naming restrictions in UFL considered non-free by Debian > > Status in Ubuntu Font Family: > Incomplete > Status in The Ubuntu Font Licence: > Incomplete > > Bug description: > The Debian ftpmaster consider the Ubuntu Font License to be non-free: > > "After discussion in the FTP Team, we consider the font naming > restrictions > to restrictive and unclear for main." > > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-fonts- > devel/2011-April/006515.html -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/769874 Title: Naming restrictions in UFL considered non-free by Debian To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-font-family/+bug/769874/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
