O.K.... you asked for people's relevant comments. Here's mine; Ya know I really am as concerned as the next guy fella or gal about licenses being adhered to. Nonetheless, IF there is no clearly defined license especially when no license document is extent on stuff that is meant to be used freely (as long as it is not for commercial distribution), then why shouldn't arch allow for a maintained package of these fonts. Or put another way, I am hoping that this discussion is simply for the purpose of finding a suitable way to deal with the license field in some or a specific PKGBUILD. <- And I hope we are not talking about some purity clickish deal like Debian and other distros that are against this or that because it does not fit into some preconceived notion about there being a NEED for a specific kind of license and/or a NEED for providing a specific kind of licensing document. Those kinds of things always seem to end up satisfying no one but a small number of zealots. Arch has always been about a clean way for a user to get something useful AND desirable. Let's not go off half-cocked on a wild goose chase and end up not pleasing people by throwing good packages into the trash heap or making things complicated, especially if there is NOT a good reason to do so. In this case, I would humbly suggest that a special license file named "not _extent" be made , with some simple text that says that "No license document can be found, as such, and that this is otherwise approved for non-commercial use by the original author/distributor." . If I have offended anyone. O.k. I can live with that. If I have misunderstood anyone, O.k. I can live with that also and I am sorry. I just hope we can leave packages as they are, with perhaps a simple solution, without a felt need to move something to some other place without a DECENT reason to do so. BTW, I would not have written this little note, but my hair on the back of my neck tends to stand up when we start with some suggestions about license this and that, and moving packages and so forth, and more than a couple of emails start up on this kind of thing. <- In this specific case NO ONE's license is being violated and NO ONE is being taken advantage of. Very best regards; Bob Finch

On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 10:37:13AM -0600, Aaron Griffin wrote:

...

On Dec 18, 2007 2:33 AM, Grigorios Bouzakis wrote:

...

I have been meaning to ask, AFAIK besides the codecs package the same license have ttf-ms-fonts. Is there any change to see them in unsupported too? IMO the fonts are a more complex issue than the codecs one, since most users have them installed. Theres already an AUR entry for them in unsupported

If you can do some testing here to see WHAT these fonts should be replaced with, and what looks good, that'd be appreciated. I'd, again, be personally fine with the switch, but as you said the fonts are a far more complex issue.

Well, to be honest i am not very familiar with font issues, mainly because i rarely have to deal with fonts outside of the terminal. Almost exclusively when it comes to w3 browsing with firefox. A default Archlinux installation with the ttf-ms-fonts installed results to a very good configuration in my opinion and i never bothered dealing with the issue. I only got more interested in this some days ago when i found an old todo list.

These fonts as most of you probably already know was a project started by Microsoft in 1996 to make a standard pack of fonts for the Internet. The project was terminated in August 2002, allegedly due to frequent EULA violations. However, that same EULA allows redistribution as long as the packages are kept in their original format and with their original filename, and they are not used to add value to commercial products. As a result, they are still available for download on third-party websites. The license allows the fonts to be used on operating systems such as Linux, as long as they are distributed in original form. [1]

Archlinux's package comes from sourceforge [2]. This site claims that Uses tahoma from word 97 viewer instead of the ie6 update so no windows license is needed. (Tahoma isnt part of the ttf-ms-fonts package anyway). But also, Does not distribute Microsoft's fonts in a prohibited way (to the best the distributers knowledge).

The TLDP in its Font Packages section [3] of its Optimal Use of Fonts on Linux article [4] mentions: Some people say these fonts are free only for persons who have a Microsoft Windows license. Also the editor of the TLDP article in his own homepage has the fonts licensed under a Microsoft License [5].

Last i checked the package in the Archlinux extra repository didnt even provide a license. If it remains there what will the license field be? Microsoft? Or a plain undefined custom one that is nowhere to be found? I might be missing something here but i dont remember any discussion taking place that could have moticated sergej unto putting the ttf-ms-fonts-lic into unsupported claiming license issues [6]. Note: ttf-ms-fonts-lic doesnt have a license as well of course. Either way, in my opinion a decision should be made regarding this. Is there a point keeping both packages?

Chapter 2 :P

Now regarding a possible replacement of the ttf-ms-fonts package from extra. As i have said before i am no expert on the topic. I have seen people on the web claiming that there is no real substitute for this package. I have also read that webpage font rendering is better and faster with the use of those fonts cause most pages are created using some of these fonts. My experiments during the last days rather prove the above points, even though i didnt get into the core of this messing with font configuration files.

There are many popular font packages in AUR, some even in Community [7-9] as well as many others too available across the web.eg. [10] Maybe a combination of some of those packages will suffice for the replacement? Is an effort to achieve this worth it?

I would love hearing what others more relevant with this users have to say about this.

[1]:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_fonts_for_the_Web [2]:http://corefonts.sourceforge.net/ [3]:http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Font-HOWTO/fonts.html [4]:http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Font-HOWTO/intro.html [5]:http://avi.alkalay.net/software/webcore-fonts/webcore-fonts.spec [6]:http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?do_Details=1&ID=5418 [7]:http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?do_Details=1&ID=3673 [8]:http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?do_Details=1&ID=1086 [9]:http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?do_Details=1&ID=6608 [10]:http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2007/11/08/40-excellent-freefonts-for-profes... eternal.)

On Wed, 2007-12-19 at 09:32 +0200, Grigorios Bouzakis wrote: <snip>

- You may only redistribute the fonts in their original form (.exe or .sit.hqx) and with their original file name from your Web site or intranet site. <snip> As far as i can tell after reading the above, Archlinux's way of distributing these fonts doesnt break the Microsoft EULA besides the not providing a copy of the license point.

Actually according to your message, it does break the EULA since the files should be distributed in original .exe form then extracted on a user's system which isn't what archlinux does. The archlinux package already repackages the fonts.

Hey Greg and the gang; Two comments inserted at the appropriate points below;

On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 02:41:56PM -0500, w9ya@qrparci.net wrote:

...

Nonetheless, IF there is no clearly defined license especially when no license document is extent on stuff that is meant to be used freely (as long as it is not for commercial distribution), then why shouldn't arch allow for a maintained package of these fonts.

Actually i found the Mircosoft EULA:

http://www.microsoft.com/typography/fontpack/eula.htm

...

From the FAQ:

http://www.microsoft.com/typography/faq/faq8.htm

Q: What can I do with these fonts?

A: For all the rules that govern the use of these fonts please read the end user license agreement.

- Anyone can download and install these fonts for their own use. - You may only redistribute the fonts in their original form (.exe or .sit.hqx) and with their original file name from your Web site or intranet site. - You must not supply the fonts, or any derivative fonts based on them, in any form that adds value to commercial products, such as CD-ROM or disk based multimedia programs, application software or utilities. See Microsoft's permissions site for more details. etc..

As far as i can tell after reading the above, Archlinux's way of distributing these fonts doesnt break the Microsoft EULA besides the not providing a copy of the license point.

Ah yep.... My point exactly. In my original message that you decided to edit, I did say exactly as much. I am glad you agree. BTW, *IF* arch is putting this on the 'core' cd , then yeah, we should remove it, but the last time I did a full up archinstall, it was NOT on the cd, so I am willing to bet that we can remove it easily enough too if it has been added into the install cd.

Adittionaly the license prohibits the package to be supplied in a CD-ROM form, which means that Archlinux wont be able to provide a snapshot of its repos in such a form as long as this package is lying there. I dont know what other distros (primarily Debian) do with this. I know for a fact that Slackware doesnt provide these fonts.

If that is the case i dont see a reason to have 2 packages, 1 in extra and 1 in unsupported. As long as Archlinux doesnt provide the fonts in a CD/DVD and the package in extra gets a license it seems to be just fine.

...

Or put another way, I am hoping that this discussion is simply for the purpose of finding a suitable way to deal with the license field in some or a specific PKGBUILD. <- And I hope we are not talking about some purity clickish deal like Debian and other distros that are against this or that because it does not fit into some preconceived notion about there being a NEED for a specific kind of license and/or a NEED for providing a specific kind of licensing document. Those kinds of things always seem to end up satisfying no one but a small number of zealots.

Arch has always been about a clean way for a user to get something useful AND desirable. Let's not go off half-cocked on a wild goose chase and end up not pleasing people by throwing good packages into the trash heap or making things complicated, especially if there is NOT a good reason to do so. I just hope we can leave packages as they are

Thats the whole point. Those packages cant be left as they are. Both packages available through Archlinux webpages, the one in extra and the other in unsupported, at least at this point, do not conform with the license.

You already said above that this package would comply/conform if a copy of the license is included. I am glad you found said license. Let's just include it and be done with things. As I pointed out in my first comment above; I said as much in my original message. (Although with your editing that is no longer clear.) SO.... yes, we can all agree to just add the license (or something equally appropriate), NOT include it on the cd if it has been added, and not get all worried and fussy about things. Good. <- That *WAS* my point. I am no longer sure just exactly what you want to talk about below. In my original email I was quite clear about NOT WANTING to raise a fuss about this and just add the license OR something suitable and be done with it. How much more discussion do you want to do ? <- That is to say, why discuss this if there already *IS* the license field and such in the PKGBUILD.proto and license files are placed as needed ? (And *YES* I am being rhetorical.) Very best regards; Bob Finch

Call me anything you want to, but i doubt a zealot is the appropriate. Personally i dont care about having a purified Archlinux when there are far better close source alternatives like it happens eg. with flash. My only concern is to provide the software in the official repos as its meant to be provided. Call me a pesimist but i think the day where problems will arise is not that far away, and as people here say i would rather cook now and not when i get hungry.

As phrakture said, and im sure we all agree if there is way to get the same results using only free fonts that would be best, so my original proposal still stands. If anyone can contribute to this please do so. Judging by the votes font packages get in AUR this should interest a large number of people.

Greg

...

BTW, *IF* arch is putting this on the 'core' cd , then yeah, we should remove it, but the last time I did a full up archinstall, it was NOT on the cd, so I am willing to bet that we can remove it easily enough too if it has been added into the install cd.

Archlinux currently offers two installation media types. The FTP and the Core CD. Although the extra repo isnt included in either, the possibility of providing a DVD as an alternative installation method has been discussed a lot in the past and hasnt been dropped completely as far as i know.

...

You already said above that this package would comply/conform if a copy of the license is included. I am glad you found said license. Let's just include it and be done with things.

No, that is just one part of it. The license is needed anyway for the package to stay in repos and was bound to be added sooner or later. What is more important in my opinion, but havent got the knowledge nor the time at this point to investigate further is whether, just like the codecs package, a similar or maybe even better behaviour can be achieved by the use of open source fonts.

I thought, or better yet hoped, that somebody more relevant than me, who actually have experience, and deal with fonts on a daily basis post on this thread and allow the conversation to go further. Maybe i was wrong. Since the above hasnt happened yet i see absolutely no point in continuing this either.

Personally i will try to investigate this when i have the time and if i get any worth posting results, i will let u know.

Greg

Actually I *DID* see a message, prior to your response to me and in this thread, wherein it said that these m$ fonts work better because they did not require additional anti-aliasing setup. I agree with this too, they work fine and without any fiddling. Very best regards; Bob Finch

On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 08:52:51PM -0500, Jeff Mickey wrote:

On Dec 19, 2007 2:32 AM, Grigorios Bouzakis wrote:

...

[...]

Just to be honest here, it says you can't supply them in any form that adds value to *commercial* products. We are not using our .iso files for commercial value, and thus do not violate this part of the license. Oh, and we do ship the .exe files, and then extract them on the local system. Oh wait, and they say that anyone can download and use the fonts!

It sounds like we are in complete compliance except for the license agreement being shipped with the package.

Someone could probably just open a bug, requesting that the license be shipped? With Ion it had too restrictive of a license. This license is similar to just about any other freeware, and is a license that is not hard to comply with at all.

// jeff -- . : [ + carpe diem totus tuus + ] : .

bug report: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/8978

Aaron Griffin wrote:

...

I have been meaning to ask, AFAIK besides the codecs package the same license have ttf-ms-fonts. Is there any change to see them in unsupported too? IMO the fonts are a more complex issue than the codecs one, since most users have them installed. Theres already an AUR entry for them in unsupported

If you can do some testing here to see WHAT these fonts should be replaced with, and what looks good, that'd be appreciated. I'd, again, be personally fine with the switch, but as you said the fonts are a far more complex issue.

Just my $0.02: I'd really urge you guys to *not* remove the ttf-ms-fonts package. I use those fonts for just about everything on my boxes! Granted, someone could start supporting the package in AUR, and I guess I could live with that if I had to. But I'd be much happier to have them be officially supported. DR