On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 12:52 PM Dan Čermák
<dan.cermak(a)cgc-instruments.de> wrote:
I think that there's another pitfall here: if you e.g. build a
HTML documentation, then you should (?) include the license of all the bundled fonts, CSS
and JavaScript as well. I'm afraid we mostly don't do this at all.
Right. Documentation builders such as doxygen and python-sphinx drop
CSS, JavaScript, and image files into the built documentation. Those
may carry the license of the documentation builder, or an entirely
different license. If those documentation builders each provided a
subpackage that contains the stuff that might be copied into
documentation, then we could swizzle our documentation packages to use
symlinks into those subpackages. I'm not clear on how that would
affect the licensing, though. Also, that means that if you update
your documentation builder so that the static stuff is not backwards
compatible, you have to rebuild everything that uses it. That might
be more pain than we want to deal with.
PDF would be probably a lot safer.
Then we have to worry about the licenses of embedded fonts, right?
--
Jerry James
http://www.jamezone.org/