Re: fonts-sil-scheherazadenew_3.000-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
Hello,
On Tue 17 Nov 2020 at 10:10AM -07, Bobby de Vos wrote:
> On 2020-11-16 4:52 p.m., Sean Whitton wrote:
>> On Mon 16 Nov 2020 at 10:42AM -07, Bobby de Vos wrote:
>>
>>> On 2020-11-12 1:10 p.m., Sean Whitton wrote:
>>>>
>>>> +----------------------+
>>>> | REJECT reasoning |
>>>> +----------------------+
>>>>
>>>> There is no indication that OFL-FAQ.txt is DFSG-free.
>>> I don't understand. The copyright file includes a Files: * statement
>>> that specifies OFL-1.1. I would have thought that would specify the
>>> license for OFL-FAQ.txt file.
>>
>> Right, but there is no indication that it is actually under that
>> license. OFL is used for fonts not text files.
>
> The OFL states in the file OFL.txt that "font software" can include
> documentation. The file in question is not so much documentation of the
> font as it is documentation of the license.
>
> I am still confused. Do the concerns of ftpmaster also apply to
> FONTLOG.txt, README.txt, OFL.txt and documentation and examples in the
> documentation and web folders?
What I wrote was not as clear as it could have been, sorry.
Yes, certainly the OFL can be taken to apply to README.txt and other
upstream documentation. But presumably OFL-FAQ.txt was not written by
the authors of this particular font, but by the authors of the OFL. And
so we would need explicit indication that OFL-FAQ.txt is released under
a DFSG-free license.
The license text itself we can ignore. But OFL-FAQ.txt is not part of
the license itself.
>>> I realize now that the license should have been OFL-1.1-RFN instead of
>>> OFL-1.1. Would this change address the issue?
>>
>> I'm not familiar with OFL-1.1-RFN. Please explain some more.
>
> SPDX [1] has a good explanation in the Notes section. However, changing
> the license slightly does not address the current issue.
Ah thanks. This is not relevant to the issue at hand, I think.
--
Sean Whitton
Reply to: