|
Size: 2420
Comment: Add RFN violation in place of missing RFN notice
|
Size: 2800
Comment: improve wording
|
| Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
| Line 25: | Line 25: |
| The fonts seems to be modified, or has been rebuilt not exactly as upstream build, and your font name includes Reserved Font Names (RFN) stated in the license. |
The fonts seems to be modified, or has been rebuilt in a way that is not bitwise identical to the upstream build, and your font name includes Reserved Font Names (RFN) stated in the license. |
| Line 35: | Line 35: |
| * Rebuild exactly to the upstream using packages in main. | * Rebuild identical to the upstream build using packages in main. |
| Line 40: | Line 40: |
| * Move this package to contrib and use upstream build instead. * Change the font name to avoid RFN being used as the primary name. |
* Build the font from source using tools from Debian main during the package build but distribute the upstream build in the binary package instead. In this case it is not required to move the font to contrib. * Change the font name to avoid RFN being used as the primary name. This makes the font incompatible with the upstream font. * If the font cannot be built from source using only packages in Debian main, move this package to contrib and use the upstream build. |
TODO: Descriptions on Reserved Font Names and common serious bugs
RFN violation
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: <package>: Reserved Font Names violation
Package:
Version:
Severity: serious
User: debian-fonts@lists.debian.org
Usertags: rfn-violation license-violation
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-fonts@lists.debian.org
Your package contains a OFL font:
<package>: <filename in Debian here>
<url to the pkg-fonts review pages here>
This looks to be from here:
<upstream URLs here>
The fonts seems to be modified, or has been rebuilt in a way that is
not bitwise identical to the upstream build, and your font name
includes Reserved Font Names (RFN) stated in the license.
According to OFL-FAQ 5.9:
> Yes, all rebuilds which change the font data and the smart code are
> Modified Versions and the requirements of the OFL apply
https://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?item_id=OFL-FAQ_web
Any of these actions is required:
* Rebuild identical to the upstream build using packages in main.
* Work with upstream to resolve the license issue by having an rebuild
exception or remove RFN from the license.
Any of these actions can also resolve this issue, but not recommended:
* Build the font from source using tools from Debian main during the package build but distribute the upstream build in the binary package instead. In this case it is not required to move the font to contrib.
* Change the font name to avoid RFN being used as the primary name. This makes the font incompatible with the upstream font.
* If the font cannot be built from source using only packages in Debian main, move this package to contrib and use the upstream build.
This message is brought to you by the Debian Fonts Task Force:
https://wiki.debian.org/Fonts
Missing RFNs in debian/copyright
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org> Subject: <package>: missing font Reserved Font Names notice Package: Version: Severity: serious User: debian-fonts@lists.debian.org Usertags: rfn-violation license-violation X-Debbugs-CC: debian-fonts@lists.debian.org Your package contains a OFL font: <package>: <filename in Debian here> <url to the pkg-fonts review pages here> This looks to be from here: <upstream URLs here> Your package does not contain the Reserved Font Names (RFN) notice in the debian/copyright file, as it was published in the upstream font, therefore your distribution of the font constitutes a violation of the license. Please update the debian/copyright file in your package to reproduce the RFN notice from the upstream font. This message is brought to you by the Debian Fonts Task Force: https://wiki.debian.org/Fonts