Hi all, [ CC'ed Andreas who last worked on this ] bslib is needed for the new rmarkdown update, and it is being used in other packages in the ecosystem as well, as it seems. When I looked at the source, it comes with a few minified javascript files, which have sources so I can manage this. What looked like a bit of a problem to me is that it vendors several '.woff/.woff2' font files (binaries) in "inst/fonts" directory, some of which is basically fetched from google fonts. Since this was potentially non free, I opened an issue upstream[1] -- they are very cooperative and gave prompt responses. As they mentioned, the license for fonts seem to be compatible with DFSG[2]. So do you think we can directly distribute these binaries? I am only afraid if these could be considered binaries w/o source, and lead to FTP master rejecting this? Do you think that's the case? Do you think upstream could do $something about this? Admittedly, otherwise it would affect user experience w/o these fonts, and such rejects drive me bonkers every time. Also, do you find anything else in the package that could be problematic? Let me know about the above mentioned questions. [1]: https://github.com/rstudio/bslib/issues/412 [2]: https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#The_SIL_Open_Font_License Regards, Nilesh
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature