[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] FreeSlack: In search of FSF certification
From: |
Ivan Zaigralin |
Subject: |
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] FreeSlack: In search of FSF certification |
Date: |
Sun, 07 Aug 2016 09:59:46 -0700 |
User-agent: |
KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.4.14-gnu; KDE/4.14.21; x86_64; ; ) |
Thanks! I can confirm the fonts. And actually, other Luxi fonts share the same
license, so they are all as good as gone.
ap/ghostscript-9.19-x86_64-2.txz is clean: I am looking at the source, and
there is no jpegxr folder. Slackware must be using a clean version.
On Sunday, August 07, 2016 12:28:19 Henry Jensen wrote:
> I compared he list of non-free and thus excluded packages of freeslack[0]
> with my list of excluded packages in ConnochaetOS [1]. ConnochaetOS
> excluded following packages which freeslack does not.
>
> * ap/ghostscript-9.19-x86_64-2.txz
> ConnochaetOS provides an modified/libre version of Ghostscript
> without nonfree JPEG XR support, based on Parabola's build [2]
>
> * x/font-bh-ttf-1.0.3-noarch-1.txz
> * x/font-misc-meltho-1.0.3-noarch-1.txz
> This are non-free fonts according to Parabola's blacklist.[3] I
> re-checked and indeed the license of this two fonts is non-free
> because it allows no modification.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.