Bug#996965: Packaging bslib + licensing issues
Hi Nilesh,
Am Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 12:24:41PM +0530 schrieb Nilesh Patra:
> bslib is needed for the new rmarkdown update, and it is being used in other packages
> in the ecosystem as well, as it seems.
Thanks a lot for working on this!
> 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 can only guess here: My reason to delay the work on this is, that I'm
afraid that ftpmaster wants to see the source of these font files.
Sometimes it makes sense to package these separately.
> 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?
I think so.
> Do you think upstream could do $something about this?
Providing source and binary would be helpful. As I said above we might
also consider adding a font package.
> Admittedly, otherwise it would affect user experience w/o these fonts, and such rejects drive me
> bonkers every time.
Is there any chance that Debian has kind of very similar fonts?
> Also, do you find anything else in the package that could be problematic?
I admit I was very confused about the different versions of bootstrap
(inst/lib/bs[345]). I f we want to replace these by the Debian packaged
versions this might become a problem. No idea what inst/lib/bsw[345]
might be. I'm very weak if it comes to understand all this JavaScript
packages and maintaining different versions in one package sounds very
scary to me since I'm afraid it could depend from specific minor version
numbers and the package we distribute might be broken.
> Let me know about the above mentioned questions.
Thanks again for working on this
Andreas.
> [1]: https://github.com/rstudio/bslib/issues/412
> [2]: https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#The_SIL_Open_Font_License
>
> Regards,
> Nilesh
>
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: