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? >> 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. [1] https://spdx.org/licenses/OFL-1.1.html -- Bobby de Vos /bobby_devos@sil.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature