Hilton Chain <hako@ultrarare.space> writes: > Hi Guix, > > Recently I read about the comment in font-awesome: > > ;; XXX The build scripts of version 5 are not freely licensed and > ;; so we have to stick with version 4 for now: > ;; <https://bugs.gnu.org/32916> > > and knew about fonts are considered functional in FSDG. > > Does this mean we should only accept fonts that are possible to be built from > source independently?
Hi, FSDG list fonts as "Information for practical use", and: All information for practical use in a free distribution must be available in source form. (“Source” means the form of the information that is preferred for making changes to it.) The question is whether otf/ttf files are the preferred form for makeing changes. I think there maybe some font authors just produce the font in otf format directly, but it's safer to just require built from (better form of) source. So, yes. > If so, I think this wasn't noticed enough and we need to check all currently > packaged fonts for compliance. Yes, I considered FSDG doesn't require fonts with a free license to be built from source, thanks for the correction. I could do some checking and remove binary-only fonts later..
