Tobias Nygren <tnn%NetBSD.org@localhost> writes: > On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 17:59:57 +0000 > Leonardo Taccari <leot%netbsd.org@localhost> wrote: > >> Modified Files: >> pkgsrc/fonts/vera-ttf: Makefile >> >> Log Message: >> LICENSE is vera-ttf-license. > > I propose that this should be a default acceptable license. > The bitstream fonts are generally regarded as libre by most distros > despite not recognized by FSF or OSI. (For others mostly.) The rule in pkgsrc is documented to be approved by FSF or OSI in order to keep pkgsrc from being in the license evaluation and approval business. I wonder why this hasn't been submitted to OSI/FSF - is it that it isn't a software license and they don't want to deal? I read the license and it seems in line with Free Software principles, including the right to create derivative works. I would be ok with adding it to DEFAULT_ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES as an exception, and would prefer that when doing so we reference what other groups have decidde to treat it as Free. I have long wondered if we should add "or treated as meeting the DFSG by Debian" to the reason a license should be considered ok, as they seem to the next most authoritative entity in this area. > If people disagree the dependency should at least be dropped from > meta-pkgs/modular-xorg-fonts. Agreed.
Attachment:
pgpZPRM2BNlaI.pgp
Description: PGP signature