V Thu, Jun 09, 2022 at 06:47:58PM +0200, Arthur Bols napsal(a):
As a relatively new packager, the License: field has always been a
bit
confusing to me (it doesn't help that many projects don't include the
license files of libraries...). I liked the effective license approach
(although it's confusing and not easy to compute) because otherwise the
license field would look like a confusing mess for some packages. For
example moolticute [0],
From the spec file:
# The entire source code is GPLv3+ except:
# src/AnsiEscapeCodeHandler.[cpp|h] which is GPLv3,
# src/QtAwesome/QtAwesome/ src/http-parser/ and src/qtcsv which are MIT,
# src/QtAwesome/QtAwesome/fonts/ which is CC-BY,
# src/CyoEncode/ src/SimpleCrypt/ and src/zxcvbn-c/ which are BSD.
with the new approach (please correct me if I'm
wrong) the license field would be: "License: GPLv3+ and GPLv3 and MIT and
BSD and CC-BY". This isn't representative of the license of the Moolticute
project (which is GPLv3+).
Maybe it's not what Moolticute project claims, but it's correct. If
Moolticute
project bundles the font which is not GPLv3+, but CC-BY, and does not say so,
then the project's claim is incorrect.
CC-BY has distinct requirements from GPLv3+. E.g. it requires you to carry
a copy of the CC-BY license text, or
<
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode> URI. If you don't do
so, you violate CC-BY.
Now to the License tag of the binary RPM package: /usr/bin/moolticute contains
a copy of src/QtAwesome/QtAwesome/fonts/fontawesome-4.6.1.ttf (grep for
"DDhg-iW" string). Hence you need to list a license of that font file in the
License tag. RPM License tag is not about servility to upstream projects. It's
about providing accurate license data. You should not copy mistakes of the
upstream.
Now to the actual license of fontawesome-4.6.1.ttf. I briefely looked at it
and the only information about a license I found is this text with fontforge
tool on that file:
Fullname: FontAwesome Regular
License URL:
http://fontawesome.io/license/
A text on that License URL web page is about "Font Awesome Pro" and the
license is not CC-BY. The same page also menitions a different product with
a different license called "Font Awesome Free"
<
https://fontawesome.com/license/free> which claims SIL Open Font License 1.1
(OFL). But a git repository for that Free font
<
https://github.com/FortAwesome/Font-Awesome> notes that version 4 is obsolete
and replaced with version 6. History of the git repository does not contain
version 4.
How did you come to a conclusion that the font is CC-BY? In my opinion it
could be OFL, if it were Font Awesome Free.
-- Petr