On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 13:47 +1000, Richard Jones wrote: > On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 01:34 pm, Joe Wreschnig wrote: > > On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 09:47 +1000, Richard Jones wrote: > > > What are the chances of replacing the horrid default font with the > > > Bitsream Vera Sans font? Mmm. Anti-aliased font by default. Monospace and > > > Proportional. Yummy. > > > > 1) Including a different default font would break all existing > > applications, since the current default has slightly different metrics > > than anything else. > > Yeah, good point. OK, so even if it's not the default font, I still think it > should be packaged with pygame so that people have easy access to an > unencumbered, quality font. > > I propose that it goes into 1.7 as an optional font, and in 1.8 it becomes the > default font. How does that sit with people? Why make the default in 1.8? You've made a transition period, but no transition plan. > > 2) The Bitstream font license is questionable; it certainly doesn't fit > > with the rest of the Pygame license (LGPL) very well. > > Questionable in what way? From http://www.gnome.org/fonts/ I find: > <snip unquestionable parts> > The Font Software may be sold as part of a larger software package but no copy > of one or more of the Font Software typefaces may be sold by itself. > """ > > That reads pretty clearly as "use it, change it, attribute it, just don't > charge directly for it" Which is GPL-incompatible. The only thing that saves it in most eyes is that you don't link the font to the GPLd code, so it's still legal. Stronger interpretations of the GPL would disagree and say that the GPL speaks of derived works (and so dependencies in general), not linking. Pygame is under the LGPL, not the GPL, so this is less of a problem. But it would be the first GPL-incompatible license introduced to the Pygame "bundle". -- Joe Wreschnig <piman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part