Re: Gentoo GNU/Linux and non-free packages

[Marek Aaron Sapota]

On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 12:56:13PM +0100, Tassilo Horn wrote:
> I've just checked xorg-x11, and it has only hard dependencies to fonts
> licensed under the MIT license or public domain.  I guess, I've set some
> use flag, which enables this additional dependency.

I've just checked what I have removed from the ebuild: Bigelow & Holmes
fonts - they are now labelled as MIT licensed. Unless the license was
changed recently it is incorrect, this fonts didn't permit changing them
if I remember right. 

Reference from webmasters at gnu.org:
By Karl Berry:
One thing I noticed scrolling through the package list at
http://www.dragora.org/os/current/ReleaseNotes.txt was the
lucidatypewriter fonts. Unless Bigelow & Holmes made an unusual
exception I am not aware of (please confirm/deny?), I don't think it's
free. They have never allowed modification of any of their fonts,
bitmap or outline -> hence nonfree. Do you know if it's in gnewsense?

and also by Karl Berry:
As for the Lucida Sans Typewriter fonts, Chuck said that he has to check
his records to be completely sure, which may take a few days. But he is
pretty sure that modification is not allowed, or at most is limited to
translation to other bitmap fonts. Given that, and that the fonts
aren't in gNewSense, I think it's pretty safe to say they should be
removed.

> > Indeed - it makes it inconvenient to use only Free Software with
> > Gentoo.
> 
> I agree, but that will get better.

I hope it will but now it isn't good enough.

> 
> > To be a Free Distribution Gentoo would have to show commitment to Free
> > Software and they clearly don't.
> 
> The social contract does:

In practice try installing Netbeans and see how it fails on proprietary
dependences.

Happy hacking
Marek Aaron Sapota

pgpxG02KICEcM.pgp
Description: PGP signature