Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Legal issues with new font guidelines
Le Mer 28 janvier 2009 14:18, Tom \spot\ Callaway a écrit : If this obsoletes the need for a -common package, then do not create one. However if you don't you'll have to deal with the directory ownership of the common font directory (I purposefully didn't want to open this particular can of worm) and other common files. Also documentation can be bulky, especially when upstream provides in in pdf or .doc form with embedded bitmaps of what the font looks like. -- Nicolas Mailhot ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Legal issues with new font guidelines
Nicolas Mailhot wrote: Le Mer 28 janvier 2009 15:54, Tom \spot\ Callaway a écrit : ke. Well, it seems like there wouldn't be much of a case to obsolete -common in that scenario, just move the license into each subpackage. I was not clear, sorry. In that case documentation is a multi-meg .doc or .pdf file that includes windows installation instructions, examples of the font use in bitmap image form, and the § that says oh, and BTW, the font is © X and released under the OFL Shouldn't it be -docs then? -common sounds like something the rest of the packages should depend on, which apparently is not the case here. I don't really like the sans and serif separation. It may make sense for megafonts like DejaVu, or CJK fonts, but can't think of any other case. behdad And to repeat my first message, the hypothetical use case is selective extraction of rpm content without using rpm, and re-distribution of selective parts of the distribution by third-parties without respecting constrains we enforce via rpm, which is not something we can be sued from since *we* would not be the ones doing the selective incomplete re-distribution. If we start worrying about this we may as well refuse to package all the fonts that do not include full licensing information in their metadata, since nothing would stop the hypothetical third-party to re-distribute the font files without the detached license file anyway (regardless in which package we deploy it) ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Legal issues with new font guidelines
Le mercredi 28 janvier 2009 à 13:38 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod a écrit : Nicolas Mailhot wrote: Le Mer 28 janvier 2009 15:54, Tom \spot\ Callaway a écrit : ke. Well, it seems like there wouldn't be much of a case to obsolete -common in that scenario, just move the license into each subpackage. I was not clear, sorry. In that case documentation is a multi-meg .doc or .pdf file that includes windows installation instructions, examples of the font use in bitmap image form, and the § that says oh, and BTW, the font is © X and released under the OFL Shouldn't it be -docs then? -common sounds like something the rest of the packages should depend on, which apparently is not the case here. It's not -doc because 1. the common packages has also a technical role as owner of common directory 2. several font packages put more than just doc in it (core font indexes, etc) 3. and anyway that's just a name, so please everyone take a break and not start another bike-shedding stage. If you want to comment comment on the technical spec templates, I've taken enough grief over renamings others inflicted on me I won't support in any way a new renaming crusade. I don't really like the sans and serif separation. It may make sense for megafonts like DejaVu, or CJK fonts, but can't think of any other case. I can't think of a single srpm in the repository where sans and serif are updated in lockstep at the same coverage (or style) level, except perhaps liberation (and I wouldn't expect this state to survive any serious community contribution). So in theory, I may agree with you, but in practice, sans and serif have different lives. And even if there were some, I wouldn't want to introduce exceptions that induce documentation and maintenance burdens just to make it a little prettier. Brutal simple same rules for everyone is much easier on packagers. -- Nicolas Mailhot signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
