https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1492475 --- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx> --- Thanks for your review! Fonts source are provided but they are compiled with makeotf, part of Adobe Font Development Kit for OpenType (AFDKO), a non free software: LICENSE Adobe grants You a non-exclusive, non-transferable, royalty-free license to use, reproduce, modify, and redistribute the items in this Package for the purposes of developing Developer Fonts. You agree not to reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble or otherwise attempt to discover the source code of the FDK except to the extent you may be expressly permitted to decompile under applicable law, it is essential to do so in order to achieve operability of the FDK with another software program, and you have first requested Adobe to provide the information necessary to achieve such operability and Adobe has not made such information available. Adobe has the right to impose reasonable conditions and to request a reasonable fee before providing such information. Any information supplied by Adobe or obtained by you, as permitted hereunder, may only be used by you for the purpose described herein. Adobe is under no obligation to provide any support under this Agreement, including upgrades or future versions of the FDK or other items in this Package, to Developer, end users, or to any other party. For Versionning, I followed this rule: >Do not trust font metadata versionning[4], unless you've checked upstream does >update versions on file changes. When in doubt use the timestamp of the most >recent font file as version, for example 20081231. > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template Although font metadatas provide versions, these are not the same for every file, and if I choose the higher number, there's no guarantee a new release would just update one of the other font file. >The spec uses a date but pulls from a commit; this doesn't follow the snapshot versioning guidelines. Upstream didn't tag a release, beside saying "Here's version 1". I,ve asked them a Github release. >Speaking of licensing, MIT is not one of the recommended or explicitly approved licenses for fonts I don't think this is an issue, this page only list font licenses and the issue with GPL doesn't apply to MIT since it allows embedding. ("Good font licenses allow embedding"). >Since you were able to work with upstream to get the license added, you can suggest to them to add the "license description" (#13) or "license info URL" (#14) fields in the fonts themselves. I've queried upstream, hopefully they will accept my request. -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
