Please unbundle the microsoft corefonts and make a fully free version of root (like the one you have in Debian https://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs//main/r/root-system/root-system_5.34.19+dfsg-1.2_copyright)
Patch from Fedora https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/root/blob/rawhide/f/root-fontconfig.patch
Fonts are not libraries, please do not mix things. ROOT needs the fonts to render things properly, see bug https://bugs.gentoo.org/643562. Support for external fonts is something that should be addressed upstream rather than in Gentoo. Once support for external fonts is there, then we can remove the bundled fonts and depend on the right packages.
Providing corefonts in this way is a violation of their EULA http://corefonts.sourceforge.net/faq8.htm now this is a licensing issue
The EULA says anyone is free to install and use the fonts, MSttfEULA is listed among the licenses of sci-physics/root, and distribution is fine as long as the license is also distributed. I do not see where the EULA is being violated here. See https://github.com/root-project/root/blob/master/fonts/LICENSE#L21-L31.
The only way to provide corefonts is to extract them from the original .exe and not modify/rename them whatsoever. See the corefonts ebuild on how it does. From https://askubuntu.com/a/134972 It does not allow for redistribution of the TTF font files on their own
(In reply to Alessandro Barbieri from comment #5) > The only way to provide corefonts is to extract them from the original .exe > and not modify/rename them whatsoever. MSttfEULA says: | · Reproduction and Distribution. You may reproduce and distribute an | unlimited number of copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT; provided that each copy | shall be a true and complete copy, including all copyright and trademark | notices, and shall be accompanied by a copy of this EULA. Copies of the | SOFTWARE PRODUCT may not be distributed for profit either on a standalone | basis or included as part of your own product. Does root upstream modify the fonts themselves? IANAL, but I don't think that simple repackaging in a different archive format (e.g. tar instead of CAB) qualifies as modification. > See the corefonts ebuild on how it does. My guess is that this is mainly for technical reasons, namely to avoid the need for repackaging. The corefonts ebuild doesn't have a bindist restriction.
No, the fonts are not modified, just included as is, along with a copy of the license file. I hope that we can get support for fontconfig merged upstream to resolve this, but for now, I think keeping the fonts so rendering is not broken is ok.
