Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > 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" Shouldn't it be -docs then? -common sounds like something the rest of the packages should depend on, which apparently is not the case here. I don't really like the sans and serif separation. It may make sense for megafonts like DejaVu, or CJK fonts, but can't think of any other case. behdad > 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) > _______________________________________________ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
