FS#65613 - [licenses] Please include OFL-FAQ.txt

Attached to Project: Arch Linux
Opened by Caleb Maclennan (alerque) - Monday, 24 February 2020, 13:09 GMT
Last edited by David Runge (dvzrv) - Tuesday, 25 January 2022, 21:04 GMT
Task Type Feature Request
Category Packages: Core
Status Closed
Assigned To David Runge (dvzrv)
Levente Polyak (anthraxx)
Architecture All
Severity Low
Priority Normal
Reported Version
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 2
Private No

Details

According to [these guidelines](https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/PKGBUILD#license) any license used in 2+ packages in official repositories is eligible to be a standard license rather than a custom one. This makes the OFL ([SIL Open Font License](https://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?item_id=OFL)) will within the criteria.

I update the wiki page there to reflect this. Because of the "reserved font name" clause in the license each font package is still going to have to include a copy of OFL.txt. However there is a second file [OFL-FAQ.txt](https://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?item_id=OFL-FAQ_web)] that is included in many many OFL licensed packages that is always identical. It seems like a waste to package it over and over again.

Could the OFL-FAQ.txt file please be included in the licenses package?
   OFL-FAQ.txt (57.6 KiB)
This task depends upon

Closed by  David Runge (dvzrv)
Tuesday, 25 January 2022, 21:04 GMT
Reason for closing:  Won't implement
Additional comments about closing:  The OFL is not something we can install as a common license.

Carrying the OFL FAQ brings no gain to the licenses package.
Comment by Doug Newgard (Scimmia) - Monday, 24 February 2020, 14:52 GMT
This isn't a separate license that can be entered in the license array, so I'm not sure how this would work. Why would this file get installed anyway?
Comment by Ivy Foster (escondida) - Monday, 24 February 2020, 21:40 GMT
I included it simply as documentation; the terms of the OFL do not require it to be installed.
Comment by Caleb Maclennan (alerque) - Tuesday, 25 February 2020, 07:01 GMT
"Why install it anyway?" is a good question. Legally it wouldn't be required, but many font makers include it as if it was part of the license and it is routinely distributed with in font downloads. One outcome of this ticket could be that font packaging guidelines for Arch suggest _not_ including it at all. Whether it is helpful to package or not is a point of disagreement between many AUR maintainers.

If packaged in *licences* I would suggest `/usr/share/licenses/common/OFL/license-faq.txt` of something, the idea being that the actual license.txt would still need to be bundled in each package, but the bit that is common to OFL font distributions would be in a common place.
Comment by Caleb Maclennan (alerque) - Thursday, 12 March 2020, 16:22 GMT
See also this feature request on namcap: https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/47958
Comment by George Rawlinson (rawlinsong) - Monday, 18 May 2020, 08:48 GMT
Just chiming in to say that the following packages are licensed OFL, therefore the license should be bundled in the licenses package:

- adobe-source-code-pro
- terminus-font
- ttf-fira-code
- ttf-liberation
- cantarell-fonts
- noto-fonts
- noto-fonts-cjk

Note: This is not an exhaustive list, it's merely a number of packages that I have installed on my computer.
Comment by Doug Newgard (Scimmia) - Monday, 18 May 2020, 10:08 GMT
OFL already is in the package. The FAQ is totally unnecessary.

Edit: I take that back, the OFL CANNOT be included for the same reason that MIT isn't included. Either way, this ticket is not about the OFL.

Loading...