fonts February 2011

fonts@lists.fedoraproject.org

3 participants
3 discussions

font packages list
by Akira TAGOH 29 Aug '11

29 Aug '11

Hi, just thought it may be a good idea to put the packages list anywhere, which fonts are used for aliases by default. so I'm trying to generate the list from comps and the fontconfig file (to see the priority and the alias) in a package. Here is the list genereated: https://tagoh.fedorapeople.org/fonts/f14-defaultinstalledfonts.html That doesn't contain all of font packages but only font packages marked as "mandatory" or "default" in comps. also sorted out against the fontconfig priority. Also the source code is available at: http://fedorapeople.org/gitweb?p=tagoh/public_git/fonts-sig.git;a=tree;f=fo… I'm not checking everything so it might be wrong in some cases. any volunteers to check are always welcome :) Cheers, -- Akira TAGOH

3 10

Which fonts should be pulled in by desktop environments as dependencies?!
by Hedayat Vatankhah 22 Feb '11

22 Feb '11

Hi all, Recently, I come across a bug[1] in the dependencies of LXDE desktop group, one part of which turned out to be applicable to other desktop environments too: Fedora desktop environments does not depend on any fonts at all. So, if you does not have any fonts installed on your system, and install one of such groups (e.g. gnome-desktop group) you'll end up with a desktop environment without any fonts! Now, as is being discussed in [1], which fonts should be pulled by a desktop environment as its dependencies? Thanks, Hedayat [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678923

2 3

HVD Comic Serif Pro: licensing confusion
by J.B. Nicholson-Owens 11 Feb '11

11 Feb '11

I found HVD Comic Serif Pro on the wish list of fonts to be reviewed and packaged for inclusion into Fedora GNU/Linux. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/HVD_Comic_Serif_fonts I downloaded a copy of the font archive file -- http://hvdfonts.com/assets/Document/15/HVD_Comic_Serif_Pro.zip -- and I read the Readme.txt file therein. That Readme.txt file includes terms which conflict with the license: > This typeface may not be modified in any way unless it contains an > unmodified copy of this text file and attributes Hannes von Döhren in > the font metadata. and > Neither the Font Software nor any of its individual components, > in Original or Modified Versions, may be sold by itself. Original or > Modified Versions of the Font Software may be bundled, redistributed > and/or sold with any software, provided that each copycontains the > above copyright notice and this license conflict with portions of the license (for the font, I can only guess) which is listed as: > LICENSE: > "This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 > Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative > Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, > USA." The top two passages I quoted above seem to me to be licensing terms. And these terms conflict with CC BY 3.0 unported: - there is no requirement in this CC license which requires a licensor to include "an unmodified copy of this text file" - there are no restrictions in this CC license against distributing copies of this font alone for a fee - attribution in accordance with this CC license can be achieved without including this Readme.txt file (one could, for example, include no such file and list changes elsewhere, or include a different readme.txt file which gives Hannes von Döhren credit and list changes in that different file) - this CC license says it is the only set of terms for licensing this work under this CC license (sections 4a and 8e). My reading of these sections say that any other terms (such as those listed in the Readme.txt file) do not have to be followed. Looking at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/HVD_Comic_Serif_fonts it seems that Fedora considers CC BY 3.0 unported to be the only operative license on this font. But how has Fedora determined that this Readme.txt file can be ignored? I looked through the mailing list archives for this list and found no discussion referring to this font. Has anyone contacted Hannes von Döhren about this? Thanks.

3 3

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

fonts February 2011