[Pkg-fonts-devel] Cantarel font

Dave Crossland dave at lab6.com
Mon Mar 14 07:42:00 UTC 2011


On 11 March 2011 03:51, Fabian Greffrath <fabian at greffrath.com> wrote:
> Am 07.03.2011 16:20, schrieb Nicolas Spalinger:
>> Considering that the copyright of the work is assigned to a company and
>> not GNOME as a non-profit, I'm not sure how GNOME could be the
>> foundry...    Also there are some discrepancies with a foundry name
>> which is different than the company name in the metadata of the various
>> source files.
> Well, maybe the term "foundry" isn't as universally suitable as we wish and
> it simply canot be applied to all possible fonts. Maybe we should
> concentrate on who *released* the font.
> In the current example, Dave Crossland has release the Cantarell fonts on
> <http://abattis.org/cantarell/>, but development has recently been taken
> over by the GNOME team under the same font name and we package *their*
> version. Thus the package name should be fonts-gnome-cantarell. If we also
> packaged (for whatever reasons) Dave's original version of the fonts, that
> package name should probably be fonts-abattis-cantarell or
> fonts-dcrossland-cantarell or something similar.
> Another example are the Tuffy fonts, originally released by Thatcher Ulrich
> on <http://tulrich.com/fonts/>. As a package name for the original font I
> propose fonts-tulrich-tuffy. However, there are several derivatives of this
> fonts released under the same name, but not by Thatcher. If we e.g. ever
> packaged the variant found here
> <http://opendesktop.org/content/show.php?content=123829>, the package should
> IMHO be called fonts-brrtkr-tuffy, although neither tulrich nor brrtkr is
> stricly speaking a "foundry".
> As a last example take the Liberation fonts, created by Ascender for Red
> Hat. Sure, they were created by Ascender, so this will be the "foundry2
> name, but the fonts that we distribute today have been heavily extended and
> modified by Red Hat, Fedora and a wide community and are in effect *not the
> Ascender fonts* anymore. Since they are developed and released by Red Hat
> (and not Ascender) I propose to change their package name to either
> fonts-redhat-liberation or fonts-fedora-liberation (or maybe even
> fonts-fedorahosted-liberation).
> What do you think?

I mostly agree with you; can a GNOME program have the copyright
assigned to a bunch of parties and not GNOME Foundation?

I believe GNOME is the foundry since development is hosting on GNOME
systems and work is centrally organized there. I am happy for
references other than copyright notices to be changed from
Understanding Limited to GNOME Foundation :)


More information about the Pkg-fonts-devel mailing list