https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1978395 Otto Urpelainen <oturpe@xxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(oturpe@xxxxxx) |needinfo?(ce@xxxxxxx) --- Comment #2 from Otto Urpelainen <oturpe@xxxxxx> --- (In reply to Christopher Engelhard from comment #1) > The package is generally fine, with the exception of the bundled fonts. > Ideally these would be packaged as a normal font package instead. Since this > is both a SHOULD & a lot of work, I'm fine with leaving them in. However in > that case, their license (SIL Open Font License (OFL)) needs to be added to > the spec. This is a problem that affects all or almost all rubygem packages. When I was creating this package, I asked about font bunding in the ruby-sig mailing list [1], you can find more information there. I did not consider licensing before, so I had to dig in more now. It turns out that the package is (barely) in compliance with the font license conditions. Refer to OFL-FAQ Q1.10 "Does the full OFL license text always need to accompany the font?" [2] and consider that all the fonts contain at least the url of the license — you can check this e.g. by uploading the font files to Font Inspector [3]. (Strangely, I could not find a cli tool for this from the Fedora repositories.) The license does not belong to specfile License field, because that is only for the main ("binary") rpm as described in Licensing Guidelines section License: field [4]. I contacted Lato upstream to suggest them a way to improve the situation [5]. Do you accept this explanation? We can also continue the discussion on the ruby-sig list since this is relevant affects very many rubygem packages. [1]: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/ruby-sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/thread/YM3X6EDCKZ3Y37V7J5LTCUZINMN7ZEOY/ [2]: Q: 1.10 Does the full OFL license text always need to accompany the font? [3]: https://opentype.js.org/font-inspector.html [4]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_field [5]: https://github.com/latofonts/lato-source/issues/7#issuecomment-883907559 > Sidenote: Any idea why fedora-review complains about %gem_install not being > used when it clearly is? This is a bug in fedora-review. I already submitted a fix [6] and it was merged, we are only waiting for a new release. [6]: https://pagure.io/FedoraReview/pull-request/416 > [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gems/doc, > /usr/share/gems > **** These are provided by ruby(rubygems), which is an (implicit, > automatically generated) dependency of this package. This is OK. **** Another fedora-review bug, my pull request for this [6] has also been merged. [6]: https://pagure.io/FedoraReview/pull-request/419 -- 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 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/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
