On Sat, Jan 04, 2014 at 10:04:44AM +0100, Matthieu Herrb wrote:
> 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.
... which is exactly why my previous message started with "Unless it is a
requirement".
--
Antoine
