Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961642
Bug ID: 961642 Summary: Review Request: ubuntu-font-family - The fonts used in Ubuntu Linux Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: kprasad@gmx.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Category: ---
Spec URL: http://kprasad.net/Fonts/ubuntu-font-family.spec SRPM URL: http://kprasad.net/Fonts/ubuntu-font-family-0.80-1.fc18.src.rpm
Description: The Ubuntu Font Family are a set of matching new Libre/Open fonts. The development is being funded by Canonical on behalf the wider Free Software community and the Ubuntu project. The technical font design work and implementation is being undertaken by Dalton Maag. More information at : http://font.ubuntu.com/about/
Note: This is my first build and I need a sponsor. (And I'm planning to package the fonts listed in Fonts wish-list :) )
Fedora Account System Username: kprasad
Koji scratch build : http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5360119
Thanks, Prasad.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961642
K.Prasad kprasad@gmx.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961642
--- Comment #1 from K.Prasad kprasad@gmx.com --- Adding rpmlint output :
$rpmlint ../SRPMS/ubuntu-font-family-0.80-1.fc18.src.rpm ubuntu-font-family.src: W: invalid-license Ubuntu Font License, based on SIL OFL 1.1 ubuntu-font-family.src:51: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 51, tab: line 4) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961642
Antonio Trande anto.trande@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |anto.trande@gmail.com Blocks| |182235 (FE-Legal)
--- Comment #2 from Antonio Trande anto.trande@gmail.com --- Hi.
"SIL Open Font License 1.1" is ok for Fedora but "Ubuntu font family" is not listed among appropriate licenses:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Font_Licenses
Please, ask to Fedora Legal.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961642
--- Comment #3 from K.Prasad kprasad@gmx.com --- Thanks Antonio. I'll request them to review this license.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961642
Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tcallawa@redhat.com
--- Comment #4 from Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com --- The Ubuntu Font License is non-free.
It says:
To "Propagate" a work means to do anything with it that, without permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a computer or modifying a private copy.
The "except" items are use and modification restrictions. Since the license only refers to "propogate", and never grants unrestricted use or modification permissions, the license is non-free.
Canonical could fix this license by simply dropping "except executing it on a computer or modifying a private copy".
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961642
--- Comment #5 from K.Prasad kprasad@gmx.com --- Thanks for the review. So I guess this package cannot be included in Fedora repo.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961642
Hans de Goede hdegoede@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |hdegoede@redhat.com
--- Comment #6 from Hans de Goede hdegoede@redhat.com --- (In reply to K.Prasad from comment #5)
Thanks for the review. So I guess this package cannot be included in Fedora repo.
Or you could contact Ubuntu and ask them to fix the license.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961642
Christopher Meng cickumqt@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |cickumqt@gmail.com
--- Comment #7 from Christopher Meng cickumqt@gmail.com --- I will try contacting Ubuntu for a declaration.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961642
Christopher Meng cickumqt@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- External Bug ID| |Launchpad 1211154
--- Comment #8 from Christopher Meng cickumqt@gmail.com --- https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-font-family/+bug/1211154
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961642
Julien Enselme jujens@jujens.eu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jujens@jujens.eu Blocks| |1070946
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070946 [Bug 1070946] Review Request: python-SimpleCV - Open source framework for building computer vision applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961642
Julien Enselme jujens@jujens.eu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|1070946 |
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070946 [Bug 1070946] Review Request: python-SimpleCV - Open source framework for building computer vision applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961642
--- Comment #9 from Kevin Kofler kevin@tigcc.ticalc.org --- The funny thing is that the offending definition is copied from the GPLv3. But sadly, out of the context of the GPLv3 (in particular, its "2. Basic Permissions" paragraph), the definition does not make sense. And unfortunately, that's exactly what this license does, it attempts using that definition in a BSD-style "Permission is granted, free of charge, …" clause. The hybrid does not fit together.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961642
--- Comment #10 from Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com --- I'm amused (and disappointed) that this bug has been open on Canonical's side for almost two years now.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961642
Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED CC| |panemade@gmail.com Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR), |201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) |182235 (FE-Legal) | Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed| |2015-08-15 08:10:51
--- Comment #11 from Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com --- Please feel free to reopen but for now, I am going to close this and any other review by this submitter based on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews#Submitter_...
Note for others, I have already ping package submitter on other bug but have not got any response.
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235 [Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449 [Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response should be blocking this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961642
Paul Sladen fedora@paul.sladen.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora@paul.sladen.org
--- Comment #12 from Paul Sladen fedora@paul.sladen.org --- @spot: I didn't see this bug report before this evening. My apologies on behalf of the Ubuntu project. Anyone is most welcome to ping me directly, using any of the normal methods.
Yes, as Kevin Kofler has noted the "Propagate" wording arrived directly at the suggestion of somebody extremely familiar with the GPLv3 drafting. For the ease of anyone wanting to follow, a diff verses SIL OFL 1.1 is here:
http://font.ubuntu.com/ufl/ofl-1.1-ufl-1.0.diff.html
UFL-1.0 in "Preamble" has "allows the licensed fonts to be used, studied, modified and redistributed freely"
GPLv3 in "Basic Permissions" has "You may make, run and propagate"
My understanding of the "executing it on a computer or modifying a private copy." (identical in GPLv3 and UFL-1.0) is to clearly differentiate local activities from intentional distribution (the propagation).
Those local activities being "make and run" (GPLv3); or "use, study, modify" (UFL-1.0).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961642
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zbyszek@in.waw.pl
--- Comment #13 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl --- The _intent_ is clear in the preamble ("be used … and redistributed freely"), however "Permissions & Conditions" allows for "propagation" under specified terms, but doesn't directly allow _use_. So you're allowed to distribute the font, but there's no specific permission for the font to be used. This doesn't make much sense, and I doubt anyone could argue, because of the preamble, that you violate the copyright just by using the font, but indeed this should be fixed.
I don't think the suggested fix of dropping "except executing it on a computer or modifying a private copy" is the best approach. Instead, it would imho be better to add a separate sentence at the beginning of Permissions&Conditions that use, study, and modification, without propagation, are not limited in any way.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961642
--- Comment #14 from Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com --- Arguably, the "best" approach would be to use a standard and recognized font license, like the SIL OFL, but I imagine that is unlikely to occur. This hybrid license is inconsistent, and the text does not reflect the intent.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla