On 2020-11-17 3:48 p.m., Sean Whitton wrote: > 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. Yes, the OFL-FAQ.txt is from the authors of the OFL, not the authors of this font (although in this case, the authors of the OFL, the font, and myself are all part of the same WSTech team at SIL). The intent of the OFL author is that the OFL-FAQ.txt is very closely related to the OFL itself. Note how the OFL license itself refers to the FAQ, and the website[1] for the OFL license (the URL of which is in the license) mentions[2] that OFL-FAQ.txt should be included. [1] http://scripts.sil.org/OFL [2] https://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi&id=OFL#83afb016 So, does d/copyright need to explicitly list OFL-FAQ.txt as being under the OFL? Or is the intent of the OFL author sufficient? If clarification from the OFL author is needed, I can ask them (as they are my technical director at work). Bobby -- Bobby de Vos /bobby_devos@sil.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature