Le vendredi 30 juillet 2010 à 14:45 -0400, TK009 a écrit : > Here is were I get confused. If I were contact this person and they > say yes its GPL and never change the metadata how is fedora protected > from him coming back later and saying they were not GPL? Or is this a > case of as long as we did our bit we don't really care? When licensing is stated in a separate web page, or when you get confirmation in a mail that the licensing is fedora-friendly foo license when the font metadata states bar license, always package the web page or the mail as %doc in the package. This way we have a trace we did check the licensing and didn't invent it from scratch. Of course, it is better when the font files are fixed so their metadata says the same about legal conditions, or better yet when they state it and the licensing text is included as a detached .txt/.pdf file in the zip/tar.gz they release (because most users will never read the metadata). However, many authors that can be convinced to switch to a good licence never bother to change it in their old font files (it is work that most font users wouldn't care less about). And “professional” expensive fonts such as Liberation and Droid were distributed by Red Hat and Google for a few months before people pointed out their contractor embedded bogus terms in the font metadata. So if big software corporations can not get it right, who can blame individuals that create fonts as a hobby? So please, do not block on what the metadata of a font states. If you have good reason to believe the font is released under another licence, treat bogus metadata as a bug, not as a legal problem. A bug should be fixed (and you can remind politely upstream about it), but is not blocking unlike a legal problem. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot _______________________________________________ fonts mailing list fonts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fonts http://fonts.fedoraproject.org/
