On 10/06/2022 09:19, Petr Pisar wrote:
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.
The license for QtAwesome is contained in the repo, so it is mentioned.
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.
I don't think upstream is making a mistake (except when license files
for included libraries are missing). When someone creates a FOSS
project, they choose a license. They should check that all libraries are
compatible with that license, but I don't agree that it is a mistake
that there isn't a license breakdown in the repo. The license is
normally (and should be) mentioned at the top of the library files
themselves, or somewhere in the library directory.
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.
I guess due to licensecheck, but I don't recall. The license should be
OFL as mentioned in the LICENSE file [0]. I'll correct the mistake next
release.
But I don't think this specific package and project is the topic of this
thread. It was given as an example to explain my point of view.
[0]:
https://github.com/mooltipass/moolticute/blob/master/src/QtAwesome/LICENSE.md
--
Arthur Bols
fas/irc: principis
_______________________________________________
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
