V Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 10:48:07AM +0200, Pavol Sloboda napsal(a): > My question is: How to handle referencing the Licenses of the fonts since > they are binary files and there does not seem to be any sign of a license > mentioned anywhere near them? I do not use these fonts during the build nor > do I package them
License RPM tag only pertains files which are packaged in the binary RPM packages. If you do not package them, you should not list their licenses there. (A side note: Fedora's RPM supports SourceLicense RPM tag which can be used for enumerating licenses of files in source RPM package.) > but since the main package is licensed under GPL-2.0-only > I have to take the licenses of the source files into consideration. > The worst part probably is the fact that the fontawesome-webfont.svg > contains this line: > Copyright Dave Gandy 2016. All rights reserved.. > Could you please help me understand how to work this out? Binary font files tend to have a license declaration inside. Try openning them in "fontforge" tool (packaged in the same-named package) and look into the font metadata (Element → Font Info). Since Fedora distributes source RPM packages, all licenses of all files in the source package, i.e. in the source archive, must have an approved license. Try to pair the discovered license declarations with Fedora's license identifiers. If there is no license declaration, you can assume they have the same license as the upstream project. If you cannot identify the license, or if you believe that the license is not approved, or that the upstream violates their license (e.g. the license text is missing from the source archive, or the GPL binary file has no sources), ask upstream for clarification. Regarding packaging in Fedora there is simple workaround for files that you don't need: Unpack the upstream source archive, delete those files and pack it again under a distinct name. Then use the new archive in Source tag in the spec file and upload that new archive to dist-git. Of course document that properly in the spec file. A good practise is scripting the removal and adding that script into dist-git. See perl-Mail-DMARC package for an example. -- Petr
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- _______________________________________________ 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
