Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Legal issues with new font guidelines

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


Le Mer 28 janvier 2009 15:54, Tom \"spot\" Callaway a écrit :
> 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

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Font Configuration]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite Forum]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux