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

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


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.


> 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

[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