On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 12:52 PM Dan Čermák <dan.cer...@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/ _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
