Please read this before reporting a bug:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Reporting_Bug_Guidelines
Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in Unsupported. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.
REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Reporting_Bug_Guidelines
Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in Unsupported. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.
REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
FS#53474 - [ttf-hack] Custom license missing from package and not signaled as such
Attached to Project:
Arch Linux
Opened by iTanguy (itanguy) - Monday, 27 March 2017, 19:32 GMT
Last edited by Doug Newgard (Scimmia) - Tuesday, 28 March 2017, 14:31 GMT
Opened by iTanguy (itanguy) - Monday, 27 March 2017, 19:32 GMT
Last edited by Doug Newgard (Scimmia) - Tuesday, 28 March 2017, 14:31 GMT
|
DetailsDescription:
The font provided by the package can be distributed under a "custom" license, but the license is not provided. Additional info: * package version: ttf-hack 2.020-2 Steps to reproduce: 1. Check upstream project license 2. Check package "Licenses" field (e.g. with "pacman -Qi") 3. Look at package files (e.g. with "pacman -Ql") Expected result 1. License is a custom "Hack OFL + Bitstream Vera License" 2. Value is "custom" or "custom:XXX" 3. The license text is provided under "/usr/share/license/ttf-hack/", as required by the License and ArchLinux packaging guidelines Actual result 1. OK 2. Value is "SIL Open Font License 1.1 and Bitstream Vera License" 3. No license file provided |
This task depends upon
____
¹ https://github.com/source-foundry/Hack/blob/master/LICENSE.md
Proposed patch seems quite OK, upstream license doesn't seem to have changed meanwhile.