V Thu, Jun 09, 2022 at 06:47:58PM +0200, Arthur Bols napsal(a): > As a relatively new packager, the License: field has always been a bit > confusing to me (it doesn't help that many projects don't include the > license files of libraries...). I liked the effective license approach > (although it's confusing and not easy to compute) because otherwise the > license field would look like a confusing mess for some packages. For > example moolticute [0], From the spec file: # The entire source code is GPLv3+ except: # src/AnsiEscapeCodeHandler.[cpp|h] which is GPLv3, # src/QtAwesome/QtAwesome/ src/http-parser/ and src/qtcsv which are MIT, # src/QtAwesome/QtAwesome/fonts/ which is CC-BY, # src/CyoEncode/ src/SimpleCrypt/ and src/zxcvbn-c/ which are BSD. > with the new approach (please correct me if I'm > wrong) the license field would be: "License: GPLv3+ and GPLv3 and MIT and > BSD and CC-BY". This isn't representative of the license of the Moolticute > project (which is GPLv3+). > Maybe it's not what Moolticute project claims, but it's correct. If Moolticute project bundles the font which is not GPLv3+, but CC-BY, and does not say so, then the project's claim is incorrect. CC-BY has distinct requirements from GPLv3+. E.g. it requires you to carry a copy of the CC-BY license text, or <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode> URI. If you don't do so, you violate CC-BY. Now to the License tag of the binary RPM package: /usr/bin/moolticute contains a copy of src/QtAwesome/QtAwesome/fonts/fontawesome-4.6.1.ttf (grep for "DDhg-iW" string). Hence you need to list a license of that font file in the License tag. RPM License tag is not about servility to upstream projects. It's about providing accurate license data. You should not copy mistakes of the upstream. Now to the actual license of fontawesome-4.6.1.ttf. I briefely looked at it and the only information about a license I found is this text with fontforge tool on that file: Fullname: FontAwesome Regular License URL: http://fontawesome.io/license/ A text on that License URL web page is about "Font Awesome Pro" and the license is not CC-BY. The same page also menitions a different product with a different license called "Font Awesome Free" <https://fontawesome.com/license/free> which claims SIL Open Font License 1.1 (OFL). But a git repository for that Free font <https://github.com/FortAwesome/Font-Awesome> notes that version 4 is obsolete and replaced with version 6. History of the git repository does not contain version 4. How did you come to a conclusion that the font is CC-BY? In my opinion it could be OFL, if it were Font Awesome Free. -- Petr
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ packaging mailing list -- packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to packaging-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/packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
