Okay, thanks for clarifying. JM

On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Thomas Bohn wrote:

On 2009-06-08 21:03 +0200, JM wrote:

...

These are some good typefaces by the way :)

Yeah, I thought about putting it on AUR too. But you were faster than me but why did you put only one third of his font collection in your package?

Thomas

I could add Diavlo right away. As for Fontin, the recommended version is TTF while all the other fonts are opentype, dunno if I should mix them in one package. Also, Fontin is to be re-released as opentype under the name of Fontin Semi soon. Fertigo, Anivers and Museo require registration at myfonts.com, so I would have to 'distribute' them which appears to be against the licence. Maybe I should get in touch with the author. Regards, JM

And the license says: "This font may not be distributed or sold -not online nor on any media- without my permission"

So maybe this package could be added to the community repo, if the font designer allows it.

Heiko

Are there any packages in the official repos that are distributed under the same conditions? I expect that the Arch devs would be reluctant to maintain a portfolio of agreements with various developers granting Arch the right to distribute their work. Perhaps that could be left to the package maintainer but I think they would still be on the line as the official distributors of the packages. I don't really know who bears ultimate responsibility though. I think it would actually make more sense to provide a trusted version of the AUR with a subset of packages from the AUR that the user could install with the same confidence as the official packages. This would be ideal for avoiding many legal pitfalls but opponents of the idea will simply say that the AUR already does this and that all you need to do is check the PKGBUILD and install scripts yourself. Xyne

Am Tue, 9 Jun 2009 12:59:15 +0200 schrieb Xyne :

Are there any packages in the official repos that are distributed under the same conditions? I expect that the Arch devs would be reluctant to maintain a portfolio of agreements with various developers granting Arch the right to distribute their work. Perhaps that could be left to the package maintainer but I think they would still be on the line as the official distributors of the packages. I don't really know who bears ultimate responsibility though.

I think it would actually make more sense to provide a trusted version of the AUR with a subset of packages from the AUR that the user could install with the same confidence as the official packages. This would be ideal for avoiding many legal pitfalls but opponents of the idea will simply say that the AUR already does this and that all you need to do is check the PKGBUILD and install scripts yourself.

I didn't want to say, that this package has to be moved to community. I just wanted to say, that it's not impossible, because someone has written, that these fonts may not be distributed. ;-) It's of course sufficient to keep font packages in AUR, especially because there's nothing to compile. A second "trusted" AUR makes not really sense in my eyes. This would make the whole thing more complicated. I think the repos and AUR are ok as they are now. Btw., there was a feature in AUR which TUs could use to mark a PKGBUILD as trusted. I guess there were some reasons, why this feature was removed. Heiko