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 someon
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 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.
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:44 PM, Adolfo Jayme Barrientos
wrote:
>> "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.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 24/01/13 20:56, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
> Canonical is certainly free to do as it please with its
> creation... but let's not pretend that this is not, for all
> practical purpose, an advertising clause.
What if we look at the fontwork itself: Supp
> "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 typograph
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 6:42 PM, Adolfo Jayme Barrientos
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Norbert Thiebaud 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
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Norbert Thiebaud 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 to purposefully
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Adolfo Jayme Barrientos
wrote:
> Now, going on-topic: the UFL does not forbid LibreOffice from
> including Ubuntu [1], we are not renaming it, and honestly, calling it
> “distro-specific” based on just the name, is throwing bullshit. There
> is a cola beverage name
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Rene Engelhard 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 face-to-face
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
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
Defin
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}
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 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 wouldn't
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Rene Engelhard 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
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=603157.
>
> We
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:13:43AM +0100, Stefan Knorr (Astron) wrote:
> On 24 January 2013 10:27, Tor Lillqvist 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 love
Hi Tor,
On 24 January 2013 10:27, Tor Lillqvist 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 vendor-neutral
Hi Björn, Tor,
On 24 January 2013 10:27, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
>> with LibreOffice on Windows and OSX? That would make them available for use
>> in
>> default templates etc.
Personally, I'd love to see it in LibreOffice, especially because it
is one of the very few opensource fonts that covers s
> with LibreOffice on Windows and OSX? That would make them available for use in
> default templates etc.
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
Hi all,
is there any objection to deploying the Ubuntu fonts:
http://font.ubuntu.com/
with LibreOffice on Windows and OSX? That would make them available for use in
default templates etc.
Best,
Bjoern
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.f
19 matches
Mail list logo
