[Please keep cc: list intact, so people don't have to subscribe to the non-public figlet mailinglist]
Hi all, During a review of my updated figlet 2.2.4-1 package[1], it was discovered that the fonts directory still contains non-distributable files. An example of these files are the fonts/8859-*.flc files. These files contain the following paragraph: "Unicode, Inc. specifically excludes the right to re-distribute this file directly to third parties or other organizations whether for profit or not". Bart Martens has helpfully suggested that the files could be replaced by the following re-distributable file [2]. This problem also affects existing 2.2.2-1 packages that currently exist in unstable, testing, stable and oldstable [3], and will result in these packages being removed from Debian until the issue is solved [4]. I have since noticed that there has also been activity recently on the fedora bug tracker regarding the same issue [5]. It would be great to have these issues solved so that figlet could continue to be included in the next Debian release. Many thanks, Jon [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=673096#18 [2] ftp://ftp.unicode.org/Public/MAPPINGS/ISO8859/8859-3.TXT [3] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=674844 [4] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=674850 [5] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642#c27 On 14 May 2012 11:46, Claudio Matsuoka <[email protected]> wrote: > The standard font set ("ours") is certainly safe to be in main. Being > the C-64 collection not subject to copyright, only 3x5 remains to be > checked. > > > On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Ian Chai <[email protected]> wrote: >> Glenn & I had every intention when we made up FIGlet that it be "freely >> usable by everyone as long as they acknowledge". That was our original >> intention and so we fully endorse taking steps to get it into the free >> section of Debian. >> >> If some third-party font copyrights turn out to be the problem, can we at >> least get the standard set into the free section? >> >> >> On 14 May 2012 07:38, John Cowan <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Claudio Matsuoka scripsit: >>> >>> > Some controversy arose, however, on the license terms of some >>> > contributed fonts (all of them outside the main package). I'll contact >>> > the author of the 3x5 font to resolve one of these issues, but I'm not >>> > sure about the C-64 fonts. Are 8-bit computer bitmapped console font >>> > shapes (not files) covered by specific copyrights, or can we consider >>> > them to be in public domain? Maybe you could check that with someone >>> > in the Debian legal team? >>> >>> Bitmap fonts are in the public domain in the U.S., because they are >>> considered insufficiently creative to copyright. Specifically, the actual >>> *appearance* of a font cannot be copyrighted, and bitmaps are considered >>> just a trivial transformation of the appearance. Scalable fonts are >>> computer programs, though, and are copyrightable. >>> >>> Thus my Figlet fonts in the bdffonts directory, which are based on the X >>> bitmap fonts, as well as anything from the C-64 world, are safely public >>> domain in the U.S. In Europe it may be a different story in principle, >>> but the chances that anyone will sue are essentially nil. Such lawsuits >>> are very expensive and there is no hope of any financial gain by them. >>> What is more, the bdffonts have MIT-ish licenses, though the copyright >>> notices are probably invalid. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
