On August 10, 2022 7:18:35 PM UTC, Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 12:52 PM Dan Čermák ><dan.cermak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I think that there's another pitfall here: if you e.g. build a HTML documentation, then you should (?) include the license of all the bundled fonts, CSS and JavaScript as well. I'm afraid we mostly don't do this at all. > >Right. Documentation builders such as doxygen and python-sphinx drop >CSS, JavaScript, and image files into the built documentation. Those >may carry the license of the documentation builder, or an entirely >different license. If those documentation builders each provided a >subpackage that contains the stuff that might be copied into >documentation, then we could swizzle our documentation packages to use >symlinks into those subpackages. I'm not clear on how that would >affect the licensing, though. Also, that means that if you update >your documentation builder so that the static stuff is not backwards >compatible, you have to rebuild everything that uses it. That might >be more pain than we want to deal with. > >> PDF would be probably a lot safer. > >Then we have to worry about the licenses of embedded fonts, right? Yes, but AFAIK HTML documentation also pulls in fonts. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
