Re: [GNU-linux-libre] FreeSlack: In search of FSF certification

[Ivan Zaigralin]

Thanks! I can confirm the fonts. And actually, other Luxi fonts share the same 
license, so they are all as good as gone.

ap/ghostscript-9.19-x86_64-2.txz is clean: I am looking at the source, and 
there is no jpegxr folder. Slackware must be using a clean version.

On Sunday, August 07, 2016 12:28:19 Henry Jensen wrote:
> I compared he list of non-free and thus excluded packages of freeslack[0]
> with my list of excluded packages in ConnochaetOS [1]. ConnochaetOS
> excluded following packages which freeslack does not.
> 
> * ap/ghostscript-9.19-x86_64-2.txz
>   ConnochaetOS provides an modified/libre version of Ghostscript
>   without nonfree JPEG XR support, based on Parabola's build [2]
> 
> * x/font-bh-ttf-1.0.3-noarch-1.txz
> * x/font-misc-meltho-1.0.3-noarch-1.txz
>   This are non-free fonts according to Parabola's blacklist.[3] I
>   re-checked and indeed the license of this two fonts is non-free
>   because it allows no modification.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.