On Tue, 08 Apr 2025 20:40:36 +0800, 宋文武 wrote: > > 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..
Let me know when you want to start, I'm in :) I think this can be a chance to organize documentation for fonts. Making a packaging guideline for example, this can help the contribution and review process more actionable. <https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/FontsPolicy/> is a good example, we can have a shorter one.
