On Mon, 26 Sept 2022 at 19:18, Elena ``of Valhalla'' Grandi < valha...@debian.org> wrote:
> http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/Scripts.txt > http://www.unicode.org/Public/security/latest/confusables.txt > which, if my understanding of https://www.unicode.org/copyright.html is > correct aren't DFSG, but could be redistributed. > Given they sit under Public aren't they DATA FILES and subject to https://www.unicode.org/license.txt That license seems very BSD 3-Clause-ish. I suppose it comes down to what "Further specification" means. Does it mean license.txt overrules copyright.html? You could ask debian-legal for guidance. Do you think it is ok to upload the package like this? > It's not ideal but if the result is you cannot use those confusables then its the only way forward. > 2) Even if the answer to 1 is yes, I can also try to package > confusable_homoglyphs: upstream can download the files from the unicode > consortium if they aren't available: do you think it's better to use > that ability and package the file in contrib, or just put everything in > non-free? > > Personally, the latter sounds quite easier, and I would be strongly > tempted by it. > I have a similar problem with SNMP MIBs (thanks IETF). They're not even redistributable so I have a contrib mibs-downloader package. If the system can do it itself, that's ok but it needs to be something that the user knows is happening. I have had issues with WordPress before where it has links in some of the themes. So in summary: * See if license.txt is the actual license and its DFSG free (I think it could be) * If not, I'd package the files in a separate archive - Craig -- > Elena ``of Valhalla'' > > 🧛 >
