On Sat, Jan 04, 2014 at 09:39:05AM +0100, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 04, 2014 at 12:12:33AM +0100, Tobias Ulmer wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 11:52:42PM +0100, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
> > > > @@ -34,5 +44,8 @@ do-install:
> > > > ${INSTALL_DATA_DIR} ${FONTDIR}
> > > > ${INSTALL_DATA} ${WRKSRC}/*.pcf.gz ${FONTDIR}
> > > > ${INSTALL_DATA} ${WRKSRC}/fonts.alias
> > > > ${FONTDIR}/fonts.alias-dina
> > > > + ${INSTALL_DATA_DIR} ${PREFIX}/share/doc/dina-fonts
> > > > + ${INSTALL_DATA} ${WRKDIR}/LICENSE ${PREFIX}/share/doc/dina-fonts
> > > > +
> > >
> > > Is that part really usefull?
> > >
> >
> > Maybe if you want to embed the font into something and need to check its
> > license. I guess we do this in a number of fonts mainly out of
> > compliance. It's usually requested that the license is kept with the
> > font files.
> >
> > Should we drop this?
>
> Unless it is a requirement and we must ship it within the pkg itself for
> whatever reason, I would drop it.
> Others may disagree.
>
Yes I disagree. Most of the free software license ask that the
copyright notice and license are included somewhere in the
documentation. For ports, OpenBSD encourages people to use binary
packages. So the licenses file should be shipped within the
binary packages. For me it's just basic practices in free software.
Here the MIT license says :
> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
> included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
For base and xenocara, we more or less consider the source as part of
the system and may thus avoid installing the corresponding copyright
notices and licenses somewhere under /usr/share.
--
Matthieu Herrb
