Bug 452317

Nicolas,

As far as I know Fedora bewares of patents. The Utopia font was patented:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=MNkpAAAAEBAJ
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/D317323.html .

Fun. What I don't understand then is how Adobe (which is a serious firm, with
real lawyers) could give the font to the TEX user group with a license that
allowed OFL-ing. Would you have the name of the Adobe contact per chance?

Actually, googling the it a bit it seems:
1. last time this went to court the patent angle was rejected and the copyright
angle upholded
2. the entity that sued and was the patent holder was Adobe
3. the authorization Adobe gave to the TEX user group explicitely covers
copyright and talks about font modifications

So I don't really see Adobe suing for patents when they gave the green light to
modifications and redistribution themselves, and courts refused the patent
argument before.

But IANAL, so this is for fedora-legal to decide. And if the text of the current
TEX User Group grant is not good enough, presumably a better one can be
negociated with Adobe since the release of Utopia comes from them.

Does anyone mailed our legal, yet? Can I do so?

(In reply to comment #4)
> Does anyone mailed our legal, yet? Can I do so?

You can but blocking on FE-Legal is supposed to be sufficient

I need to talk with the lawyers about this one, please hold. ;)

BTW utopia is referenced there http://directory.fsf.org/project/utopia/ if
that's worth anything

(In reply to comment #7)
> BTW utopia is referenced there http://directory.fsf.org/project/utopia/ if
> that's worth anything

Not really. The FSF isn't concerned at all with patents, only that it is under a
free license.

See also
http://ospublish.constantvzw.org/?p=560

Thanks Nicolas, but the license isn't really the hold up here (we've already
decided that is ok), it is the larger issue of design patents in play.

Ok. Anyway if you want more info Adobe-side, Thomas Phinney seems to be the contact.

(In reply to comment #11)
> Ok. Anyway if you want more info Adobe-side, Thomas Phinney seems to be the
> contact.

He's basically the manager of the their font divison. He does comment on licensing matters on typophile.com. But he's been mum about some shady issues like whether it's okay to produce documents using the Minion and Myriad that come with Adobe Reader; AFAICT nobody from Adobe ever cleared that up. So I wouldn't hold my breath that he'll answer this patent issue either...

There has been an update upstream a couple of days ago. The author added the Bold and BoldItalic variants, so you should probably update the rpm.

The design patents in play here have all long since expired, something I didn't notice initially, because I didn't realize that design patents have a much shorter life. Lifting FE-Legal.

Thanks.

Now that the legal part is done, I've updated the proposed package with the latest upstream version

http://nim.fedorapeople.org/heuristica-fonts.spec
http://nim.fedorapeople.org/heuristica-fonts-20080825-1.fc10.src.rpm

I'll go ahead and review this in the next few days sometime.

Sorry for the delay here... 

OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
OK - Spec file matches base package name. 
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. 
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. 
See below - License (OFL)
OK - License field in spec matches
OK - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
7bce211edb964a2c3149e8ae6d46fc6a  heuristica-src-20080825.tar.bz2
7bce211edb964a2c3149e8ae6d46fc6a  heuristica-src-20080825.tar.bz2.1
OK - BuildRequires correct
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. 
OK - Package has a correct %clean section. 
OK - Package has correct buildroot
OK - Package is code or permissible content. 
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. 
OK - Package has rm -rf RPM_BUILD_ROOT at top of %install

OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. 
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. 
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. 
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. 
OK - No rpmlint output. 
OK - final provides and requires are sane.

SHOULD Items:

OK - Should build in mock. 
OK - Should build on all supported archs
OK - Should function as described. 
OK - Should have sane scriptlets. 
OK - Should have dist tag
See below - Should package latest version

Issues: 

1. There is a newer version upstream, might update to that before importing?
20081109

2. One more thing thats confusing me on the legal front that should be mentioned
here: The fontforge script files that are used to produce the font are under the 
GPLv2+ license. Since they aren't shipped in the binary package or part 
of the font itself, I guess it's ok that the package license here is OFL, 
but I thought I would mention it here. 

I don't see any blockers here... so this package is APPROVED.

Thanks a lot for the review! Will of course import the lastest font version.

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: apanov-heuristica-fonts 
Short Description: Heuristica serif font
Owners: nim
Branches: F10, devel
InitialCC: fonts-sig

cvs done.

apanov-heuristica-fonts-20081109-1.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/apanov-heuristica-fonts-20081109-1.fc10

apanov-heuristica-fonts-20081109-1.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.