On 07/22/2013 11:11 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le Lun 22 juillet 2013 17:07, Robert Marcano a écrit :
Fonts has licenses, some of them require the license to be shown or the
copyright displayed, some fonts has the copyright added to their
metadata, I don't find for example that gnu-free-serif-fonts says on
it's metadata that is GPL+3 with exceptions.
I'd say that when a font requires some communication of licensing
downstream, but forgets to put its own license in the font metadata,
that's an upstream problem. Upstream can not complain Fedora didn't work
hard enough about something it didn't do itself.
I disagree, they added the license file to the downloaded package. If
you extend that way of thinking, then if executables doesn't have
license metadata it isn't my problem that I publish them on my web server
It's another thing when the licensing actually prohibits distribution, but
we don't have those in Fedora, and people that deploy such fonts in Fedora
can write deny apache rules themselves (though providing a sample of tuch
a rule would be good)
The real problem with publishing things is that if I distribute binaries
of many things I must follow the license, some say I need to distribute
sources, some say that I need to distribute a copy of the license, etc.
Making files downloadable by default adds to the distributor more work
(legal) because they must comply with their licenses. So if I put an
open service of an Apache licensed web application, I will start
distributing fonts with other licenses without ever noticing, for
example GPL+3 (nothing against any license, only examples of the things
people should care when distributing free/open licensed code/assets)
Regards,
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
