Le Mer 28 janvier 2009 15:54, Tom \"spot\" Callaway a écrit : ke. > > Well, it seems like there wouldn't be much of a case to obsolete > -common > in that scenario, just move the license into each subpackage. I was not clear, sorry. In that case "documentation" is a multi-meg .doc or .pdf file that includes windows installation instructions, examples of the font use in bitmap image form, and the § that says "oh, and BTW, the font is © X and released under the OFL" And to repeat my first message, the hypothetical use case is selective extraction of rpm content without using rpm, and re-distribution of selective parts of the distribution by third-parties without respecting constrains we enforce via rpm, which is not something we can be sued from since *we* would not be the ones doing the selective incomplete re-distribution. If we start worrying about this we may as well refuse to package all the fonts that do not include full licensing information in their metadata, since nothing would stop the hypothetical third-party to re-distribute the font files without the detached license file anyway (regardless in which package we deploy it) -- Nicolas Mailhot _______________________________________________ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
