https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1128841 --- Comment #15 from Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #14) > (In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #7) > (In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #9) > > Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/openmortal/openmortal.spec > SRPM URL: > https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/openmortal/openmortal-0.7-4.fc20.src. > rpm > > Rawhide build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7576267 > > > (In reply to Stephen Gallagher from comment #12) > (In reply to Stephen Gallagher from comment #13) > > Stephen, thanks a lot for your explanation of legal issues at the fonts > where I do fully confirm. But consider thar upstream is inactive since > years. Therefore, it's doubtful that a notice to upstream will decide > anything and in the short term. As I said, this *could* be resolved as a packager fix rather than an upstream one: you could remove the questionable fonts from the tarball before uploading it and then patch the source code to use some existing fonts that are packaged (They won't look the same as the upstream release, but I suspect that people are more concerned with the gameplay). > Maybe it's the easier way to move this package to RPM Fusion and avoid all > that nasty legal discussion? RPM Fusion doesn't protect you from either of these legal issues. If there's a trademark or likeness issue, then RPM Fusion cannot carry it either. As for the fonts, I'm not sure how they would handle that, but you'd likely need to get a legal opinion either way, so scrubbing the fonts from the tarball is likely to be needed regardless. So for the moment, I'd wait to hear a real legal opinion. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review