Bug#902981: Font Awesome v5 in Debian
- To: 902981@bugs.debian.org
- Subject: Bug#902981: Font Awesome v5 in Debian
- From: Bastian Germann <bage@debian.org>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2023 16:28:59 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 2d1d4579-9068-4555-7b84-ce796357d394@debian.org>
- Reply-to: Bastian Germann <bage@debian.org>, 902981@bugs.debian.org
- In-reply-to: <69ae21b5-3d4f-ac5c-18d6-f499e9fb7542@debian.org>
- References: <7648f24b-0d23-a7c8-42cd-6c166e92b0ad@progress-linux.org> <f58431b6-7ce2-9e1f-7dff-a1958ad3659c@debian.org> <e8fec079-38a3-4e59-ac47-a0fdcbcdf614@Spark> <69ae21b5-3d4f-ac5c-18d6-f499e9fb7542@debian.org> <69ae21b5-3d4f-ac5c-18d6-f499e9fb7542@debian.org> <7648f24b-0d23-a7c8-42cd-6c166e92b0ad@progress-linux.org>
X-Debbugs-Cc: sebastic@xs4all.nl
On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 17:31:55 -0400 Alexandre Viau <aviau@debian.org> wrote:
For software to be considered to be included in Debian, it must be free
software. We try to evaluate whether or not something is free software
by using the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG)[1].
Font Awesome matches the DFSG on all points except one:
> The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in
source code as well as compiled form.
Font Awesome v5 is only available in compiled form, without the build
tool. This makes it incompatible with our definition of Free Software.
To help explain our definition of source code, we often refer to "All
sources in their preferred form of modification".
For example, minified JavaScript would fail that definition, even if it
could technically be considered as modifiable code.
Is there something that could be done so that Font-Awesome v5 can match
this interpretation of what is free software?
1. https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
When you search Debian it turns out, Font Awesome 5 is around in A LOT of packages.
A good starting point is https://lintian.debian.org/tags/font-in-non-font-package.
It will take a lot of effort to get it out. I have started at #1025000.
I agree with Alexandre here but there seem to be people that ignore this sentiment
as you can see at #1027982. How would we go about it?
Reply to: