[Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#819273: Bug#819273: Bug#819273: Google sources for Roboto Mono font

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Control: forwarded -1 https://github.com/googlefonts/RobotoMono/issues/26

Quoting Thomas Lamprecht (2021-11-24 11:45:29)
> On 24.11.21 10:37, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > Quoting Thomas Lamprecht (2021-11-24 10:03:09)
> >> On Sun, 21 Nov 2021 18:45:25 +0100 Jonas Smedegaard 
> >> <jonas at jones.dk> wrote:
> >>> Quoting Thomas Lamprecht (2021-11-21 17:29:07)
> >>>> On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 10:35:41 +0000 Phil Armstrong 
> >>>> <phil at kantaka.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 21:35:58 -0500 Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> >>>>>> Google hasn't really published their sources for Roboto Mono 
> >>>>>> yet so I think it's more appropriate for that to go into 
> >>>>>> contrib instead for now.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The sources to Roboto Mono appear to have been published here in 
> >>>>> 2018:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>    https://github.com/googlefonts/RobotoMono
> >>>>>
> >>>>> but there’s no licence in the repo at the moment. I’ve raised an 
> >>>>> issue, so hopefully Google will add one & we can get this font 
> >>>>> packaged in Debian!
> >>>>
> >>>> There's also another repo with a license file which marks it as 
> >>>> Apache-2.0:
> >>>>
> >>>> https://github.com/google/fonts/tree/main/apache/robotomono
> >>>
> >>> As previously mentioned in this bugreport, 
> >>> https://github.com/google/fonts/ contains only binary products, 
> >>> not sources.  License for non-source code is relevant only if 
> >>> released in non-free.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Argh, sorry - missed that; but it seems that the other repo also 
> >> linked here in this bug report got some updates since its initial 
> >> mentioning (when it wasn't complete yet), and contains now all 
> >> sources (FWICT, not really a font developer):
> >>
> >> https://github.com/googlefonts/RobotoMono/tree/main/sources
> >>
> >> and also the built fonts, e.g.: 
> >> https://github.com/googlefonts/RobotoMono/tree/main/fonts/ttf
> >>
> >> would that be enough?
> > 
> > Haven't tested but might be enough source to produce binaries, yes.
> > 
> > But for Debian to _distribute_ produced binaries, license is 
> > required which seems still missing for the source project.
> 
> Make sense, and seems that I've again shot from hips a bit too fast, 
> there's a issue open[0] on that repo regarding the missing license, 
> mentioning explicitly Debian, so I'll watch that one and won't bother 
> this bug report until there's any relevant actual change.
> 
> [0]: https://github.com/googlefonts/RobotoMono/issues/26

Your interest and input is valuable - you are *not* "bothering".

Updated upstream reference to point to that issue #26 you found (not 
exactly a forward of same issue as this one, but more related than 
previously referenced https://github.com/googlefonts/roboto/issues/64 
which is about a fork of Roboto Mono).


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: signature
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-fonts-devel/attachments/20211124/5d97f2dd/attachment.sig>