Hi Bobby, Quoting Bobby de Vos (2020-11-18 15:14:14) > On 2020-11-17 3:48 p.m., Sean Whitton wrote: > > 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). Issue is not what needs to be listed in d/copyright. Issue is what the actual licensing is for OFL-FAQ.txt. Since your team authored that text, it seems more sensible to ask _you_ that question rather than Sean :-) To clarify: The text does _not_ need to have _same_ license as the fonts (and in fact that is likely a bad idea, since the font license is optimized for covering fonts not prose). What is crucial is that the text has a free license. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature