documentation-packages team mailing list archive

[Aaron Rainbolt <769874@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I hope this issue can be resolved eventually. The non-free status of the
font in Debian is preventing me from including it in a package I'm
working on as part of my dayjob, and it appears there are multiple
licensing inconsistencies that prevent it from being used as-is. Is
there anything in particular that would keep Canonical from relicensing
this under the SIL Open Font License?

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of
Documentation Packages, which is subscribed to fonts-ubuntu in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/769874

Title:
  Naming restrictions in UFL considered non-free by Debian

Status in Ubuntu Font Family:
  Invalid
Status in Ubuntu Font Licence:
  Incomplete
Status in fonts-ubuntu package in Ubuntu:
  Invalid
Status in Debian:
  Fix Released

Bug description:
  The Debian ftpmaster consider the Ubuntu Font License to be non-free:

    "After discussion in the FTP Team, we consider the font naming restrictions
    to restrictive and unclear for main."

    http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-fonts-
  devel/2011-April/006515.html

  Debian ITP:

    http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=603157

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-font-family/+bug/769874/+subscriptions