Migrating to chezmoi

1 files changed, 0 insertions, 177 deletions

diff --git a/.fonts/ubuntu-font-family-0.80/LICENCE-FAQ.txt b/.fonts/ubuntu-font-family-0.80/LICENCE-FAQ.txt
deleted file mode 100644
index 776a25e..0000000
--- a/.fonts/ubuntu-font-family-0.80/LICENCE-FAQ.txt
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,177 +0,0 @@
-                        Ubuntu Font Family Licensing FAQ
-
-  Stylistic Foundations
-
-   The Ubuntu Font Family is the first time that a libre typeface has been
-   designed professionally and explicitly with the intent of developing a
-   public and long-term community-based development process.
-
-   When developing an open project, it is generally necessary to have firm
-   foundations: a font needs to maintain harmony within itself even across
-   many type designers and writing systems. For the [1]Ubuntu Font Family,
-   the process has been guided with the type foundry Dalton Maag setting
-   the project up with firm stylistic foundation covering several
-   left-to-right scripts: Latin, Greek and Cyrillic; and right-to-left
-   scripts: Arabic and Hebrew (due in 2011).
-
-   With this starting point the community will, under the supervision of
-   [2]Canonical and [3]Dalton Maag, be able to build on the existing font
-   sources to expand their character coverage. Ultimately everybody will
-   be able to use the Ubuntu Font Family in their own written languages
-   across the whole of Unicode (and this will take some time!).
-
-  Licensing
-
-   The licence chosen by any free software project is one of the
-   foundational decisions that sets out how derivatives and contributions
-   can occur, and in turn what kind of community will form around the
-   project.
-
-   Using a licence that is compatible with other popular licences is a
-   powerful constraint because of the [4]network effects: the freedom to
-   share improvements between projects allows free software to reach
-   high-quality over time. Licence-proliferation leads to many
-   incompatible licences, undermining the network effect, the freedom to
-   share and ultimately making the libre movement that Ubuntu is a part of
-   less effective. For all kinds of software, writing a new licence is not
-   to be taken lightly and is a choice that needs to be thoroughly
-   justified if this path is taken.
-
-   Today it is not clear to Canonical what the best licence for a font
-   project like the Ubuntu Font Family is: one that starts life designed
-   by professionals and continues with the full range of community
-   development, from highly commercial work in new directions to curious
-   beginners' experimental contributions. The fast and steady pace of the
-   Ubuntu release cycle means that an interim libre licence has been
-   necessary to enable the consideration of the font family as part of
-   Ubuntu 10.10 operating system release.
-
-   Before taking any decision on licensing, Canonical as sponsor and
-   backer of the project has reviewed the many existing licenses used for
-   libre/open fonts and engaged the stewards of the most popular licenses
-   in detailed discussions. The current interim licence is the first step
-   in progressing the state-of-the-art in licensing for libre/open font
-   development.
-
-   The public discussion must now involve everyone in the (comparatively
-   new) area of the libre/open font community; including font users,
-   software freedom advocates, open source supporters and existing libre
-   font developers. Most importantly, the minds and wishes of professional
-   type designers considering entering the free software business
-   community must be taken on board.
-
-   Conversations and discussion has taken place, privately, with
-   individuals from the following groups (generally speaking personally on
-   behalf of themselves, rather than their affiliations):
-     * [5]SIL International
-     * [6]Open Font Library
-     * [7]Software Freedom Law Center
-     * [8]Google Font API
-
-    Document embedding
-
-   One issue highlighted early on in the survey of existing font licences
-   is that of document embedding. Almost all font licences, both free and
-   unfree, permit embedding a font into a document to a certain degree.
-   Embedding a font with other works that make up a document creates a
-   "combined work" and copyleft would normally require the whole document
-   to be distributed under the terms of the font licence. As beautiful as
-   the font might be, such a licence makes a font too restrictive for
-   useful general purpose digital publishing.
-
-   The situation is not entirely unique to fonts and is encountered also
-   with tools such as GNU Bison: a vanilla GNU GPL licence would require
-   anything generated with Bison to be made available under the terms of
-   the GPL as well. To avoid this, Bison is [9]published with an
-   additional permission to the GPL which allows the output of Bison to be
-   made available under any licence.
-
-   The conflict between licensing of fonts and licensing of documents, is
-   addressed in two popular libre font licences, the SIL OFL and GNU GPL:
-     * [10]SIL Open Font Licence: When OFL fonts are embedded in a
-       document, the OFL's terms do not apply to that document. (See
-       [11]OFL-FAQ for details.
-     * [12]GPL Font Exception: The situation is resolved by granting an
-       additional permission to allow documents to not be covered by the
-       GPL. (The exception is being reviewed).
-
-   The Ubuntu Font Family must also resolve this conflict, ensuring that
-   if the font is embedded and then extracted it is once again clearly
-   under the terms of its libre licence.
-
-    Long-term licensing
-
-   Those individuals involved, especially from Ubuntu and Canonical, are
-   interested in finding a long-term libre licence that finds broad favour
-   across the whole libre/open font community. The deliberation during the
-   past months has been on how to licence the Ubuntu Font Family in the
-   short-term, while knowingly encouraging everyone to pursue a long-term
-   goal.
-     * [13]Copyright assignment will be required so that the Ubuntu Font
-       Family's licensing can be progressively expanded to one (or more)
-       licences, as best practice continues to evolve within the
-       libre/open font community.
-     * Canonical will support and fund legal work on libre font licensing.
-       It is recognised that the cost and time commitments required are
-       likely to be significant. We invite other capable parties to join
-       in supporting this activity.
-
-   The GPL version 3 (GPLv3) will be used for Ubuntu Font Family build
-   scripts and the CC-BY-SA for associated documentation and non-font
-   content: all items which do not end up embedded in general works and
-   documents.
-
-Ubuntu Font Licence
-
-   For the short-term only, the initial licence is the [14]Ubuntu Font
-   License (UFL). This is loosely inspired from the work on the SIL
-   OFL 1.1, and seeks to clarify the issues that arose during discussions
-   and legal review, from the perspective of the backers, Canonical Ltd.
-   Those already using established licensing models such as the GPL, OFL
-   or Creative Commons licensing should have no worries about continuing
-   to use them. The Ubuntu Font Licence (UFL) and the SIL Open Font
-   Licence (SIL OFL) are not identical and should not be confused with
-   each other. Please read the terms precisely. The UFL is only intended
-   as an interim license, and the overriding aim is to support the
-   creation of a more suitable and generic libre font licence. As soon as
-   such a licence is developed, the Ubuntu Font Family will migrate to
-   it—made possible by copyright assignment in the interium. Between the
-   OFL 1.1, and the UFL 1.0, the following changes are made to produce the
-   Ubuntu Font Licence:
-     * Clarification:
-
-    1. Document embedding (see [15]embedding section above).
-    2. Apply at point of distribution, instead of receipt
-    3. Author vs. copyright holder disambiguation (type designers are
-       authors, with the copyright holder normally being the funder)
-    4. Define "Propagate" (for internationalisation, similar to the GPLv3)
-    5. Define "Substantially Changed"
-    6. Trademarks are explicitly not transferred
-    7. Refine renaming requirement
-
-     Streamlining:
-    8. Remove "not to be sold separately" clause
-    9. Remove "Reserved Font Name(s)" declaration
-
-   A visual demonstration of how these points were implemented can be
-   found in the accompanying coloured diff between SIL OFL 1.1 and the
-   Ubuntu Font Licence 1.0: [16]ofl-1.1-ufl-1.0.diff.html
-
-References
-
-   1. http://font.ubuntu.com/
-   2. http://www.canonical.com/
-   3. http://www.daltonmaag.com/
-   4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect
-   5. http://scripts.sil.org/
-   6. http://openfontlibrary.org/
-   7. http://www.softwarefreedom.org/
-   8. http://code.google.com/webfonts
-   9. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CanIUseGPLToolsForNF
-  10. http://scripts.sil.org/OFL_web
-  11. http://scripts.sil.org/OFL-FAQ_web
-  12. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FontException
-  13. https://launchpad.net/~uff-contributors
-  14. http://font.ubuntu.com/ufl/ubuntu-font-licence-1.0.txt
-  15. http://font.ubuntu.com/ufl/FAQ.html#embedding
-  16. http://font.ubuntu.com/ufl/ofl-1.1-ufl-1.0.diff.html